Loading...
December 14, 2015 Agenda MCBC CW ARION OUNTY OARD OF OMMISSIONERS ITY OF OODBURN KC EVIN AMERON JC ANET ARLSON CCA SB AM RENTANO ITYOUNCILGENDA WCC OODBURN ITY OUNCIL KF,M ATHRYN IGLEYAYOR TAL,CW1 ERESA LONSO EONOUNCILOR ARD The City welcomesthe Marion County Board of Commissioners LE,CWII ISA LLSWORTHOUNCILOR ARD and thanksthem for traveling to Woodburn to conduct the Joint RC,CWIII OBERT ARNEYOUNCILOR ARD Remand Hearing onthe Woodburn UGB Expansion. SS,CWIV HARON CHAUBOUNCILOR ARD F L,CWV RANK ONERGANOUNCILOR ARD EM,CWVI RIC ORRISOUNCILOR ARD DECEMBER 14, 2015–7:00 P.M. CHCC–270MS ITY ALL OUNCIL HAMBERS ONTGOMERY TREET 1.CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2.ROLL CALL Woodburn City Council A. Marion County Board of Commissioners B. 3.ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A.Holiday Closures: Christmas:City Hall will close at noon on December 24 and will reopen for regular business hours on December 28. The Aquatic Center will be closed on December 24 and 25.The Library will close at noon on December 24 and reopen for regular business hours on December 26. New Year: City Hall and the Library will be closed on January1. The Aquatic Center will be open 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on January 1. The City Council meeting scheduled for December 28is B. cancelled. The next City Council meeting will take place on January 11,2016at 7:00 p.m. Appointments: 1 Budget Committee C. Planning Commission D. Library Board E. This facility isADA accessible. If you need special accommodation, please contact the City Recorder at 503-980- 6318at least 24 hours prior to this meeting. **Habrá intérpretes disponibles para aquéllas personas que no hablan Inglés, previo acuerdo. Comuníquese al (503) 980-2485.** December 14, 2015Council Agenda Page i 4.COMMUNITY/GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS A.Woodburn Chamber of Commerce 5.PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None. Presentations: None. 6.COMMUNICATIONS . None – This allows the public to introduce items for Council 7.BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC consideration not already scheduled on the agenda. –Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine 8.CONSENT AGENDA and may be adopted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A.Woodburn City Council minutes of November 9, 20152 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. B.Recreation and Park Board minutes of November 10, 20155 Recommended Action:Accept the minutes. C.Appointment of Chief of Police9 Recommended Action: Approve the appointment. D.New Outlet Off-Premises Sales for Center Market #2910 Recommended Action:The Woodburn City Council recommends the OLCC approve a New OutletOff-Premises Sales for Center Market #29. E.Crime Statistics through October 201512 Recommended Action: Receive the report. F.Building Activity for October 201517 Recommended Action: Receive the report. G.Building Activity for November 201518 Recommended Action: Receive the report. 9.SWEARING-IN CEREMONY December 14, 2015Council Agenda Page ii 10.15 MINUTE RECESS 11.TABLED BUSINESS None. 12.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Joint Remand Hearing ontheWoodburn UGB Expansion 19 (Testimony must be relevant to the existing record and no new evidence will be considered) B.Public Hearing Procedure: All individuals testifying must: A.Sign up prior to the Public Hearing B.Give name for oral record 1.Mayor opens hearing for city 2.Board chair opens hearing for county 3.City gives staff report 4.County gives staff report 5.Bring up testimony sign-up sheet 6.Testimony in Support 7.Testimony in Opposition 8.General Comments/Questions 9.City and county staff jointly return to answer questions 10.City closes hearing 11. City deliberates and considers adoption of revised urban growth boundary 12.County closes hearing 13. County deliberates and considers adoption of revised urban growth boundary December 14, 2015Council Agenda Page iii –Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general 13.GENERAL BUSINESS business must complete and submit a speaker’s card to the City Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council’s agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. A.Council Bill No.2992-An Ordinance Responding to a LCDC 22 Remand Orderby Adopting an Urban Growth Boundary; Amending the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Coordination Agreement to Designate an Urban Reserve Area and Create Two 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitations; Making Legislative Findings to Explain the City Council's Action on Remand; and Declaring an Emergency Recommended Action:Adopt the Ordinance. B.Marion County Ordinance Consideration115 Recommended Action:Adopt the Ordinance. C.Marion County Agreement Consideration Recommended Action:Approve the Agreement. D.Marion County Board of Commissioners Adjournment E.Council Bill No.2993-AResolution to Comply with HB 2174 199 (2015) after Receipt of the FY 2014-2015 Audit Report Recommended Action:Adopt the Resolution. F.Aquatic Center Use Agreement202 Recommended Action:It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Administrator to enter into an Aquatic Center Use Agreement with Mid-Valley Aquatics. G.Mutual Agreement and Order Amendment between the City of 210 Woodburn and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Recommended Action:The City Council authorize the City Administrator to sign Amendment No. 1 to the Mutual Agreement and Order between the City of Woodburn and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. – These are 14.PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up by the City Council. A.Planning Commission Approval of a Design Review and 217 Property Line Adjustment, DR 2015-03 and PLA 2015-02, Located at 2100 Progress Way and 1395 Mt. Hood Avenue December 14, 2015Council Agenda Page iv Recommended Action: No action is recommended. This item is placed before the Council for informational purposes, in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 4.02.02. The Council may call up this item for review if desired. 15.CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 16.MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 17.ADJOURNMENT December 14, 2015Council Agenda Page v Agenda Item December 14, 2015 TO:City Council FROM:Kathy Figley, Mayor SUBJECT: Committee Reappointments and Appointments he following reappointments and appointments aremade, subject to the T approval of the Council. Please forward any adverse comments to me prior to the Council meeting on Monday, December 14, 2015. Noreply is required if you approve of my decision. Woodburn Budget Committee Position III - Matthew Geiger(reappointment) Position VI - John Reinhardt(reappointment) Woodburn Planning Commission Position II - Claudio Lima (reappointment) Position III - Charles Piper(reappointment) Position V - Sharon Corning(reappointment) Woodburn Public Library Board Position V - Neal Hawes (reappointment) Position VII- Logan Dean Grabill-Brown(new appointment) 1 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2015 DATE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY 0:00 OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 9, 2015 CONVENED The meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL Mayor Figley Present Councilor CarneyPresent Councilor LonerganPresent Councilor Schaub Present Councilor Morris Present Councilor Ellsworth Present Councilor Alonso Leon Present Staff Present: Assistant City Administrator Row, City Attorney Shields, Captain Alexander, Public Works Director Scott, Economic and Development Director Hendryx, Human Resources Director Hereford, Finance Director Head, Sergeant Shadrin, Accounting Manager Ellerbrook, Recreation Services Manager Wierenga, Communications Coordinator Horton, City Recorder Pierson ANNOUNCEMENTS 0:00 A.City Hall and the Library will be closed on November 11 in observance of Veterans Day. The Aquatic Center will be open normal hours. B.City Hall will be closed November 26 and 27 for theThanksgiving Holiday. The Library is closed on Thanksgiving day. The Aquatic Center will be closed November 24-26. C.The City Council meeting scheduled for November 23 is cancelled. The next City Council meeting will take place on December 14, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. PROCLAMATION 0:01 College Application Week. PRESENTATIONS 0:03 A. Auditor’s Report - Chuck Swank, Grove, Mueller & Swank, P.C., informed the Council that the 2014-2015 audit is complete and the City received an unmodified opinion. Mr. Swank noted that the City will need to pass a resolution noting the excess expenditures related to the Interchange project, which were not budgeted until 15-16. B. MERIT - Forest Peck,Executive Director of Microenterprise Resources, Initiatives & Training (MERIT) provided information on MERIT and how it helps entrepreneurs by providing training and ongoing support. C. Woodburn Museum Organizational Plan - Recreation Services Manager Wierenga and Alice Parman, a Museum Consultant provided information on the Organizational Plan Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 9, 2015 2 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2015 for the Woodburn Museum. CONSENT AGENDA 0:48 A. Woodburn City Council minutes of October 26, 2015, B. Woodburn City Council Executive Session minutes of October 26, 2015, C. Woodburn Recreation and Park Board minutes of October 13, 2015. Lonergan/Schaub ... adopt the Consent Agenda. The motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL BILL NO. 2991- A RESOLUTION TO SELL CITY OWNED SURPLUS 0:49 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1750 PARK AVE TO FARMWORKER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FHDC) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AN OPTION TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY WITH FHDC Lonergan introduced Council Bill No. 2991. City Recorder Piersonread the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor Lonergan stated that he feels this is a good compromise and appreciates staff and FHDC coming together to work this out. Councilor Alonso Leon and Councilor Carney concurred. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2991 duly passed. MUNICIPAL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE 0:52 Mayor Figley stated that Judge Zyryanoff will be retiring and the Council will need to appoint a new municipal judge. She stated that Councilor Carney has expressed interest in being on the recruitment committee and asked if any other Councilors are interested. Ellsworth/Alonso Councilor Lonergan and Councilor Schaub both expressed interest. Leon… appoint Council membersSchaub,Carney, and Lonergan to serve on the Municipal Judge Recruitment committee. The motion passed unanimously. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 0:55 Assistant City Administrator Row stated that interviews for the Economic Development Director position will start next Tuesday. He added that they are getting close to being able tomake an announcement on the new Chief of Police. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 0:56 Councilor Alonso Leon thanked those in attendance at the Council meeting and added that she enjoyed being able to meet the candidates for Chief of Police. She added that she will be volunteering at the high school during financial aid week and hopes other Councilor’s will volunteer as well. Councilor Carney stated that the Chief of Police recruitment process was well done and he thanked everyone for their input. Councilor Lonergan concurred with Councilor Carney on the Chief of Police recruitment process and looks forward to the final offering. Mayor Figley thanked the public for their input on the Chief of Police recruitment and congratulated the Woodburn boys Soccerteam on their success. Councilor Ellsworth stated that she is happy to be back and thanked fellow Councilors for Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 9, 2015 3 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2015 picking up the slack in her absence. Councilor Schaub stated that she is pleased to be back and thanked Councilors for standing in. She also thanked the community for their input on the candidates for Chief of Police. She also thanked Recreation Services Manager Wierenga for getting these grants for the City. Councilor Morris thanked staff for their customer service. He added that he thought we had a great pool of candidates for the police chief and he will be happy with whoever is selected. He also wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. ADJOURNMENT 1:01 Morris/Ellsworth ...meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Heather Pierson,City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 9, 2015 4 CityofWoodburn CityofWoodburn RecreationandParkBoardMinutes RecreationandParkBoardMinutes November 10, 2015 5:30p.m. CALL TO ORDER - 1.at 5:30pm ROLL CALL 2. Position I Ricardo Rodrigues, Member (12/18) Present Position II Vacant, Student Member (12/15) Vacant Position III Joseph Nicoletti, Board Secretary (12/17) Present Position IV Rosetta Wangerin, Board Chair (12/17) Present Position V Chris Lassen, Member (12/17) Present Position VI Ardis Knauf, Member (12/16) Present Position VII David Piper, Member (12/16) Absent Staff Kristin Wierenga, Parks & Rec Manager Present Staff Josh Udermann, Aquatics Manager Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Minutes from October 13, 2015 Recreation & Park Board unanimously approved. (Nicoletti, Rodrigues) BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 4. None NEW BUSINESS 5. None OLDBUSINESS 6. None DIVISION REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT 7. AQUATICS a. Financial Update - October Expenses –20.5% or $7940 lower than 2014 Revenues – 9% or $1324 higher than 2014 Attendance – 2774 admissions, 149 more than last year We are about $11,000 lower on expenses & $5700 higher on revenue through October Program Update Swim Lessons –Starting Tues/Thur and MWF classes this week Low enrollment, but similar to last year New winter schedule will hopefully promote better attendance 5 Significant drop in group fitness numbers for October, lowest month of 2015, but still 100 higher than last October, dropped Tues/Thur night Zumba classes which were very popular and have not been able to find new instructor Marketing/Other 1 week free –sorry to see you go postcards another 6 returned, total of 7% Pool Closure – Using money we have saved on expenses on multiple maintenance projects, locker room painting, deck joint caulking, family changing room floor epoxy, spa re-grout, carpet cleaning ($12-13K) rdth Spa closed –November 23 – 28 thth Full facility closed November 24 – 26 WBST was purchased from Mid-Valley Aquatics Brief discussion on changes with the swim team, Mid-Valley utilizing the pool, and Josh Udermann coaching for the team. Wierenga reported that potential conflicts of interest for Udermann managing the pool and coaching the team have been addressed with language within the contract. RECREATION & PARKS b. Youth Sports Pee Wee basketball going on now and youth basketball signs up’s taking place. Youth soccer done and volleyball wrapping up. Cheer camp was very successful and will do another one in February. Adult Programs Upcoming trips are filling up. The Grotto & Broadway Theater trip are both popular. Tillamook Cheese Factory tour and lunch this upcoming Saturday. Events Zombie Run (roughly 30 participating) & Mayor’s Charity Ball (roughly 50 participating) went well. Halloween event well attended before the rain came in. Mayor’s Tree Lighting coming up Dec. 6. Wierenga is working with Parks Maintenance to determine if a live tree can be planted in the Plaza to be used each year for the Tree Lighting. Locating the electrical and sprinkler systems underneath the Plaza, and the space available for planting, will determine whether this isa viable option. Lassen suggested using a noble fir vs. a douglas fir might look better with the existing palm trees. Wangerin would like to make sure it is a tree whose roots grow deep, as opposed to 6 shallow and spread out so that the tree is more stable in bad weather. Rodrigues liked the idea, but had concerns about roots damaging electrical or sprinkler system under the Plaza. And he cautioned that the end size of the tree be kept in mind. Youth Advisory Board Doing yard work currently and seeking more yard work opportunities. Abby, prior YAB student and now staff member, doing an excellent job. Wangerin congratulated YAB on all the wonderful things they have been doing. She was very impressed with their willingness to help a small local church with their rummage sale; as well as their willingness to jump in where needed at the recent Love INC. dinner auction. Udermann was also impressed with how much they assisted with the recent Halloween event at the pool with face painting and hosting crafts for kids. Adult Sports Men’s Basketball Fall League under way. Winter league starts in Jan. Addition of Pickle Ball in the spring. Museum Applied for the Heritage grant mentioned from last month and just heard it was awarded! Organizational Plan presented to council yesterday. Starting a museum committee, with first meeting in Dec. Fiesta Carnival lined up, Funtastic. Dates confirmed for Aug. 5-7, 2016. MAINTENANCE REPORT c. Playground at Centennial Park has been narrowed down to two designs by two vendors. The community will choose the design, and construction should begin in May. An update to the Splash Pad proposed at Centennial Park. City staff are currently getting estimates for the project, which will be several hundred thousand dollars. ADDITIONAL ITEMS d. Jim Ferraris was hired as Woodburn’s new Police Chief and will start in mid-December. FUTURE BOARD BUSINESS 8. Rodrigues requested information on the picnic tables at the various parks and how (or if) they are protected or stored for the winter to help prolong the use of the tables. 7 Wangerin’s last Park Board meeting will be December 8. She invited the Board to tea, hot chocolate, and cookies at her house after the December 8 Park Board meeting to thank everyone for their support during her years of service on the Park Board and to the community. Wierenga reminded the Board that Nicoletti will be serving as the Chair until February elections. The January meeting will be a workshop, with elections at the February meeting. BOARD COMMENTS 9. Rodrigues- A.None Knauf- B.Thanked Udermann for all his work and dedication to the pool, and thanked Wierenga for her hard work in securing grant funding for the museum. Lassen- C.None Nicoletti- D.None Wangerin- E.Thanked Wierenga for getting answers so quickly to the questions the Board had after their meeting in October. Thanked Udermann and pleased with the pool and the increase in revenue and decrease in expenses, reinvesting that back into the pool, and the great selection of classes offered at the pool ADJOURNMENT - 10.6:08pm 8 Agenda Item December 14, 2015 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Scott Derickson,City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Police Chief of the City Charter, which states: Pursuant to Section (C) 3 Powers and Duties “The powers and duties of the administrator shall be as follows: He or she shall appoint and may remove a City Recorder, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Director of Finance, Director of Public Works, Library Director and Director of Recreation and ParksSuch appointment or removal shall be with the consent of the . council...” Consequently, I am submitting Jim Ferrarisfor approval for the position of Police Chief.The approval of this applicant can be achieved with a Council motion and second. Agenda Item Review:City Administrator __X___City Attorney __X___Finance _____ 9 Agenda Item December 14, 2015 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM:Jason R. Alexander, Captain SUBJECT: New Outlet Off-Premises Sales RECOMMENDATION: The Woodburn City Council recommends the OLCC approve a New Outlet Off- forCenter Market #29. Premises Sales BACKGROUND: Applicant: Kaur Harminder 553 Golden Eagle Street NE Salem, Oregon 97304 503-689-5588 Applicant: Jagjit Singh 509 NE Baker Street McMinnville, Oregon 97128 503-931-6388 Business:Center Market #29 875 N Pacific Highway Woodburn, OR 97071 503-474-1860 Owners: Same as Applicant (Above) License Type: ,which permits beer, wine, and cider New Outlet Off-Premises Sales sales for off-premise consumption only. On November 10, 2015,the Woodburn Police Department received an application, requesting approval for a New Outlet Off-Premises liquor licensefor Agenda Item Review:City Administrator ___x___City Attorney __x____Finance ___x__ 10 Honorable Mayor and City Council December 14, 2015 Page 2 Center Market #29. A convenient store, that will sell grocery food items as well as alcohol for off premise consumption. Center Market #29 will be located at 875N Pacific Hwy Woodburn, OR 97071. The storewill be open 24 hours a daySunday through Saturday. There willbe no recorded music, DJ music, karaoke, or video lotterygames.The Police Department has received no communication from the public or surrounding businesses in support of or against the new outlet. DISCUSSION: The Police Department has completed a background investigation, in connection with the OLCC,on the applicants and found nothing of a questionable nature, which would preclude the issuance of this license, or granting theNew Outlet. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AgendaItem December 14,2015 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Hendryx, Directorof Economic & Development Services SUBJECT: Urban Growth Boundary Remand, LA 05-01 RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a remand hearing on the existing record and adopt the ordinance. BACKGROUND: In November 2005, Ordinance 2391 was adopted approving an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion and other Periodic Review Work Tasks. After the Marion County Board of Commissioners co-adopted the UGB expansion, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)held a hearing in 2007 and issued anApproval Order. The case was then appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and, in 2010, the Court reversed and remanded the decision back to LCDC. In 2011, LCDC held another hearing and issued a second Approval Order. The case wasappealed for a second time to the Oregon Court of Appeals and, in 2014, the Court again reversed and remanded the decision to LCDC. In March 2014, the City petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for judicial review but the Court declined to hear the case. In July 2014, LCDC initiated a mediation assessment and, on March 30, 2015, all parties to the second Court of Appeals case entered into mediation. This mediation was successful, with all parties to the second Court of Appeals case signing a Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement in April 2015. This conceptual Framework document provided that the UGB would be amended, after a remand from LCDC, as follows: A20 year expansion limitation condition west of Butteville Road NE. A20 year expansion limitation condition northeast of Highway 99E. Not including approximately 230 acres east of the intersection of Butteville Road NE and Parr Road NE, and to designate the land as Urban Reserve. Not including approximately 121 acres of residential land south of Crosby Road. Agenda Item Review:City Administrator ___x___City Attorney ___x___Finance ___x__ 19 Honorable Mayor and City Council December 14, 2015 Page 2 Not including the approximately 14 acres ofresidential land east of Highway 99E. While adoption of the Framework document was an important and positive step, everyone involved in the process knew that months of work lay ahead before the Framework could be implementedas a land use action. Also, as positive as this step was, there was at least the possibility that the tentative agreement reached by the parties could always fall through. We are extremely pleased to report to you tonight that the tentative agreement memorialized in the Framework did not fall through and that all parties to the second Court of Appeals case continue to be in agreement on the new UGB expansion proposal. Since we are engaged in a public processthere is always the possibility that the land use actions taken tonight could be subject to legal challenge. We are now confident, however, that there will be no legal challenge to your action from the parties to the second Court of Appeals case. DISCUSSION: In response to a remand order from LCDC, the City will consider a land legislative use action that: (1) expands the UGB; (2) amends the Woodburn Comprehensive Planto include two expansion limits and an Urban Reserve Area (URA); and (3) adopts a new Urban Growth Coordination Agreement with Marion Countyto also include the expansion limits and the URA.Under state law, when a city inside the county revises its UGB,the county must amend its comprehensive plan as well because the county has coordinating responsibility for all comprehensive plans within the county. The proposed UGB expansion consists of approximately 619 gross acres. This includes 190 acres for industrial use, 23 acres for commercial use, and 406 acres for residential use. As specifically depicted in the documents supporting this staff report, the URA is west and south of Parr Road and consists of approximately 230 gross acres. The two 20-year expansion limits are: Expansion Limit No. 1, which is located along portions of Butteville Road, west of Winco Foods; and Expansion Limit No. 2, located east of Highway 99E at Carl Road. The Woodburn UGB will not be expanded for any purpose beyond thetwo expansion limits for a period of 20 years from the date of this decision. 20 Honorable Mayor and City Council December 14, 2015 Page 3 Woodburn, like all jurisdictions in Marion County has an Urban Growth Coordinating Agreement with the County. It was necessary to revise this Agreement to respond to the remandby including the URA and the two expansion limits. In addition to the remand issues, this Agreement also addresses city/county coordination onissues within the UGB and city/county management of rural land within the URA and the expansion-limited areas. The revised Urban Growth Coordination Agreement implements the requirements for urban reserves planning contained in state law. When the City first adopted its original proposal to expand the Woodburn UGB substantial record was created in support of thisdecision. That same record supports the revised UGB proposal before the City and County today. As a result, and is typical of many remand proceedings, no new evidence will be considered at the public hearing. Rather, the City and County will be considering testimony and argument about the existing record as it relates to the revised UGB on remand. As part of its original actionin 2005, Woodburn updated its Comprehensive Plan, the Woodburn Development Ordinance, the Transportation System Plan, the Public Facilities Plan and adopted inventories and assessments as part of Ordinance 2391. LCDC has approved everything exceptthe UGB expansion package before you tonight. Technically, what remains is for the City to demonstrate under state land use law, based on the existing record, that theUGB expansion package complies with the statewide goals and all applicable law. Staff believes that the extensive Findings attached to the ordinance demonstrate this compliance and, therefore, recommends approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact on City resources. 21 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2992 ORDINANCE NO. 2530 AN ORDINANCE RESPONDING TO ALCDC REMAND ORDER BY ADOPTING AN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY; AMENDING THE WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT TO DESIGNATE AN URBAN RESERVE AREA AND CREATE TWO 20-YEAR UGB EXPANSION LIMITATIONS; MAKING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGSTO EXPLAINTHE CITY COUNCIL'S ACTIONON REMAND; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY in 2006, the City submitted Work Task 2, "Commercial and WHEREAS, Industrial Lands Inventory" (Task 2) of its Periodic Review work program to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) forreview pursuant to OAR 660-025-0150. The City and Marion County concurrently submitted an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendment to address identified deficiencies in residential, commercial, and industrial land needs to DLCDfor review pursuant to ORS 197.626 and OAR 660-025-0175. The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)issueda final written order approving both Task 2 and the UGB amendment on February 14, 2007 (Approval Order 07-WKTASK- 001720); and on September 8, 2010, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed WHEREAS, and remanded LCDC's order07-WKTASK-001720. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC 237 Or App 213 (2010). On January 12, 2011, LCDC met to hear (Woodburn I), argument from the partiesto appeal andDLCD. LCDC then closed the public hearing and deliberated to a decision, again approvingTask 2 and the UGB amendment (Approval Order 11-WKTASK-001802); and on January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and WHEREAS, remanded LCDC's order 11-WKTASK-001802. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC 260Or App 444 (2014). On July 7, 2014, the court issued the (Woodburn II), appellate judgment in ; and Woodburn II at its July 2014 meeting, LCDC directed DLCD to initiate a WHEREAS, mediation assessment. DLCDdid so, and the parties to the case ultimately entered into mediation, culminating in a jount request by the City and Marion County to remand the UGB amendment. On May 21, 2015, LCDC remandedTask 2 and the UGB amendment to the City and Marion County for further action; and Page 1 – COUNCIL BILL NO. 2992 ORDINANCE NO. 2530 22 LCDC's Remand Order 15-WTASK-001872 (the Remand Order) WHEREAS, provides as follows: The Commission modifies its Approval Order II -WKTASK-001802 to reverse the approval ofTask 2 and the UGB amendment, and to remand Task 2 to the City, and the UGB amendment to the City and Marion County. On remand, the City and Marion County may either readopt the UGB amendment based on findings that comply with the statewide planning goals, and applicable administrative rules that are supported by substantial evidence, or fulfill the requirements of Task 2 and a UGB evaluation in any other manner that complies with the statewide planning goals, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: In response to the Remand Order, the UGB is amended as Section 1. provided in Exhibit 1. In response to theRemand Order, the Woodburn Section 2. Comprehensive Plan is amended as providedin Exhibit 2 to designate an Urban Reserve Area and two 20-year UGB Expansion Limitations. In response to theRemand Order, a modification of the City of Section 3. Woodburn/Marion County Urban Growth Coordination Agreement(Exhibit 3) is authorized, which willinclude establishment of an Urban Reserve Area and two 20-year UGB Expansion Limitations. The actions taken in Sections 1through 3arein response to the Section 4. Remand Order and are taken after reconsideration by the City Council of the facts and evidence in the existing record. The actions taken in Section 1 through 3areexplained and Section 5. justified bythe Legislative Findings on Remand, which are attached hereto as Exhibit 4and incorporated herein. Section 2 of Ordinance 2391 (2005), which adoptsa Section 6. Comprehensive Plan Map and UGB boundary that is inconsistent with this Ordinance, is repealed. Page 2 – COUNCIL BILL NO. 2992 ORDINANCE NO. 2530 23 This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate Section 7. preservation of the public peace, health and safety (because of the need for a timely response to the Remand Order) an emergency is declared to exist and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. Approved as to form: City AttorneyDate Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed bythe Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 3 – COUNCIL BILL NO. 2992 ORDINANCE NO. 2530 24 P S / P O C O C PS/P P S / P P S / P O C P S / P O C G O C C M R M R M R 25 O C PS/P M R R1S R1S 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitation Exhibit 2 Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Goals and Policies Goal G-1. The City's goal is to manage growth in a balanced, orderly and efficient manner, consistent with the City’s coordinated population projection. Policies G-1.1 Woodburn will assure that all expansion areas of the City are served by public facilities and services with adequate capacity. Consideration of proposals that vary from City capacity standards and facility master plans shall include mitigating measures determined to beappropriate the Public Works Department. Other public service providers such as the School District and Fire District shall also address capacity considerations. G-1.2 Woodburn will encourage the optimum use of the residential land inventory providing opportunities for infill lots, intensifying development along transit corridors, and application of minimum densities. G-1.3 The City shall provide an interconnected street system to improve the efficiency of movement by providing direct linkages between origins and destinations. G-1.4 The City shall assure the provision of major streets as shown in the Transportation Systems Plan. The City shall hold development accountable for streets within and abutting the development. In addition, the policy of the City is to emphasize development outward in successive steps and phases that avoid unnecessary gaps in the development and improvement of the streets. G-1.5 The City’s policy is to consider the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) when investing public funds or leveraging private investment. 26 G-1.6 The City shall encourage high standards of design and flexibility that are enabled by the PUD zone. G-1.7 The City’s policy is to accommodate industrial and commercial growth consistent with the 2001 Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). G-1.8 Woodburn’s policy is to diversify the local economy. Woodburn seeks to diversify the local economy so that the community will prosper and can weather swings in the business cycle, seasonal fluctuations, and other economic variables. The intent is to provide a broad spectrum of commercial and industrial enterprises. The variety of enterprises will not only provide insulation from negative business factors, but a choice in employment opportunities that in turn allows for the diversification in income types. G-1.9 To ensure that growth is orderly and efficient, the City shall phase the needed public services in accordance with the expected growth. Extensions of the existing public services should be in accordance with the facility master plans and Public Facility Plan in this Comprehensive Plan. G-1.10 Woodburn will ensure that land is efficiently used within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by requiring master development plans for land within Nodal Development Overlay and Southwest Industrial Reserve overlay designations. Master plans shall address street connectivity and access, efficient provision of public facilities, and retention of large parcels for their intended purpose(s). G-1.11 The City shall pay for public facilities with system development charges from anticipated growth. G-1.12 The County shall retain responsibility for regulating land use on lands within the urban growth area (unincorporated land inside the UGB)until such lands are annexed by the City. The urban growth area has been identified by the City as urbanizable and is considered to be available, over time, for urban development. 27 G-1.13 The City and County shall maintain a process providing for an exchange of information and recommendations relating to land use proposals in the urban growth area. Land use activities being considered within the urban growth area by the County shall be forwarded by the County to the City for comments and recommendations. The City shall respond within twenty days, unless the City requests and the County grants an extension. G-1.14 All land use actions within the urban growth area and outside the City limits shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the County's land use regulations. G-1.15 In order to promote consistency and coordination between the City and County, both the City and County shall review and approve amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan which apply to the portion of the urban growth area outside the City limits. Such changes shall be considered first by the City and referred to the County prior to final adoption. If the County approves a proposed amendment to the City's plan, the change shall be adopted by ordinance, and made a part of the County's plan. G-1.16 The area outside the urban growth boundary, including the area within the Urban Reserve Area (URA),shall be maintained in rural and resource uses consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. G-1.17 The City and County shall strive to enhance the livability and promote logical and orderly development of the urban growth area in a cost effective manner. The County shall not allow urban uses within the Urban Growth Boundary prior to annexation to the City unless agreed to in writing by theCity. City sewer and water facilities shall not be extended beyond the City limits, except as may be agreed to in writing by the City and the property owner and the owner consents to annex. The City shall be responsible for preparing the public facilities plan. 28 G-1.18 Conversion of land within the boundary to urban uses shall be based on a consideration of: (a)Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services; (b)Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to ensure choices in the market place; (c)LCDC Goals; (d)Further development of vacant and under utilized residential land within the City’s buildable land inventory before annexing additional territory for conversion to residential use at urban densities; and (e)Applicable provisions of the Marion County and City Comprehensive Plans. G-1.19 Woodburn is committed to working with Marion County to minimize conversion of farm and forest lands, by achieving a compact urban growth form. The City shall zone buildable land such that the privatesector can achieve 8 units per gross acre, consistent with the City’s housing needs analysis. This efficiency standard represents the average density for new housing that will be zoned and allowed under clear and objective standards by the City. Througha combination of infill, redevelopment, vertical mixed use development and provision for smaller lot sizes and a greater variety of housing types, Woodburn provides the opportunity for the private sector to achieve at least 8 dwelling units per gross buildable acre (after removing protected natural areas and land needed for parks, schools and religious institutions). Housing through infill and redevelopment counts as new units, but no new land consumption, effectively increasing the density measurement. G-1.20 Woodburn designates and establishestwo 20-yearUGB Expansion Limitations as depicted in Figure G-1.20, which is adopted as part of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. For 20 years from the date theUGB amendment decision is acknowledged, the City shall not seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn UGBin the following areas: • West of the portion of Butteville Road NE, as depicted in Figure G-1.20. • Northeast of Highway 99Elocated at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as depicted in Figure G-1.20: 29 To further the mutual objective of the City and County to enhance livability and promote logical and orderly development in a cost effective manner, bothUGB Expansion Limitations shall function as boundaries that shall not be crossed by any UGB expansion for a period of 20 years. G-1.21 The City and Marion County have jointly agreed to establish an Urban Reserve Area (URA) consistent with state law. The URAis designated and established west and south of Parr Road as specified in Figure G-1.21, which is adopted as part of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Designating a URA achieves the following objectives: (A) It identifies appropriate lands to be reserved for eventual inclusion in the UGB; (B) In conjunction with Marion County’s adoption of policies and regulations for the URA, it protects this land from development patterns that would impede long-term urbanization; and (C) it provides more certainty for jurisdictions, service districts and property owners to undertake longer-term planning for public facilities and services such as transportation, sewer and water, schools and parks. 30 G-1.22 Woodburn shall apply a minimum density standard for new subdivisions and planned unit developments of approximately 80% of the allowed density in each residential zone. G-1.23 As specified in the Marion County Framework Plan, the County’s preliminary employment land use needs for Woodburn are replaced by the more detailed employment forecasts and site suitability analysis found in the 2001 Woodburn EOA. G-1.24 Woodburn will consider residential and commercial redevelopment and infill potential for purposes of calculating UGB capacity, prior to expanding the UGB. Woodburn will also constrain the supply of commercial land to encourage redevelopment along Highway 214 west of Interstate 5, and along Highway 99W. G-1.25 Woodburn has identified two areas for mixed-use development –Downtown Woodburn and the Nodal Development District along Parr Road. The UGB Justification Report includes specific estimates of the number of new housing units and commercial jobs that can be accommodated in these overlay districts. 31 G-1.26 Woodburn intends the UGB expansion area known as the Southwest Industrial Reserve comprising approximately 190 acres, locatedeast of Butteville Road and north of Parr Road to be used for larger industrial users. Consistent with other provisions contained in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, all landwithin the Southwest Industrial Reserve shall be reserved exclusively for industrial uses identified in the EOA and shall not be converted to another commercial or residential plan designation. Specific lot size standards shallbe established limiting the size and number of future lots for these properties. G-1.27 Woodburn recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both agricultural practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as part of their regular business practice. Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the west of Butteville RoadNE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the region’s agricultural industry. Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural uses and to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest Industrial Reserve and other urban uses, the City and County will: • Ensure that the design of any improvements tothe portion of Butteville RoadNE serving the Southwest Industrial Reserve not encourage any urban traffic unrelated to the industrial use in the immediate area and unrelated to agricultural uses west of Butteville Road. • As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial Reserve consideration shall be given to methods that mitigate impacts from development and adjacent agricultural activities. This can include buffers or increased setbacks along Butteville Road, providedthat any buffers needed to reduce conflicts between the industrial uses and agricultural activity west of Butteville RoadNE are located inside the UGB. 32 Exhibit 3 CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT This Agreement made and entered into this ________ day of ________________, _________, by and between the City of Woodburn, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called “City” and Marion County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called “County.” WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, IT APPEARING to the City and County that ORS Chapter 197, the Land Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC"), andStatewide PlanningGoal 14: Urbanization requirethat an Urban Growth Boundarybe established around each incorporated city in the State of Oregon, and that the “establishment and change of the boundary shall be acooperative process between a city and the county or counties that surround it”; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2015, LCDC remanded Work Task 2 of the Woodburn Periodic Review and Urban Growth Boundary amendmentto the City; and WHEREAS, in order to respond to LCDC's remand order it isnecessary for the City to make, and the County to approve, a new land use decisionon the existing record("the Decision on Remand"); and WHEREAS, in response to LCDC's remand,Goal 14, and the authority granted by ORS Chapter 190 concerning intergovernmental agreements, City and County have adopted an Urban Growth Boundary in Response toRemand,which is appended as Attachment 1,together with policies and procedures for amending the Urban Growth Boundary,revising City and County comprehensive plans within the Urban Growth Boundaryand outsidethe city limits, and a coordination process for county land division and land use decisions within theUrban Growth Area(i.e., the area between the city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary); and WHEREAS, both the City and County believe that this Agreement must be amended so that the Decision on Remand can be addressed; and 33 WHEREAS, the City and County may designate anUrban Reserve Area pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule 660-021 where there is a demonstrated long-term need for land for a city’s future Urban Growth Boundary expansion and a consideration of the cost-effective provision of public facilities and services to lands to be included in aUrban Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, Marion County has areas of significant and high-value farmland that should be preserved by preventing future expansion of the City onto those lands for a certain number of years; and WHEREAS, the intent of the urban growth program for the City is as follows: 1.Promote the orderly and efficient conversion of land from Rural/Resource uses to urban uses within the Urban Growth Area. 2.Reduce potential conflicts with resource lands, establishing anUrban Reserve Areaand expansion limitations where necessary. 3.Promote the retention of lands in resource production in the Urban Growth Boundary until provided with urban services and developed. 4.Coordinate growth in accordance with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and County adopt the following coordination and revision procedures and policies that, along with the policies of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, shall serve as the basis for land use decisions within the Urban Growth Areaand within the Urban Reserve Area. It is the intent of the parties that the boundaryand coordination policies and procedures expressed in this Agreement shall be consistent with Oregon State Laws, the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 34 I.COORDINATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 1.The County shall retain responsibility for regulating land use on lands within the Urban Growth Areauntil such lands are annexed by the City. The City and County identify the Urban Growth Area as urbanizable and available over time for urban development. 2.The City and County shall maintain a process providing for an exchange of information . and recommendations relating to land use proposals in the Urban Growth AreaThe County shall forward land use activities being considered within the Urban Growth Areaby the County to the City for comments and recommendations. The City shall respond within twenty (20) days, unless the City requests and the County grants an extension. 3.Upon receipt of an annexation request or the initiation of annexation proceedings by the City, the City shall forward information regarding the request (including any proposed zone change) to the County for comments and recommendations. The County shall have twenty (20) days to respond unless they request and the City allows additional time to submit comments before the City makes a decision on the annexation proposal. 4.All land use actions within the Urban Growth Areashall be consistent with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the County’s land use regulations. 5.In order to promote consistency and coordination between the City and County, both the City and County shall review and approve amendments of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan that apply to the Urban Growth Area. Such changes shall be considered first by the City and referred to the County prior to final adoption. If the County approves a proposed amendment to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, the change shall be adopted by ordinance and made a part of the County’s Plan. 6.The area outside the Urban Growth Boundaryshall be maintained in rural and resource uses consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. The area outside the Urban Growth Page 3 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 35 Boundary designated the Urban Reserve Areashall be subject to the requirements in Section V below. 7.The City and County shall promote logical and orderly development within the Urban Growth Areain a cost effective manner. The County shall not allow uses requiring a public facility provided by the City within the Urban Growth Areaprior to annexation to the City unless agreed to in writing by the City. 8.City sewer and water facilities shall not be extended beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, except as may be agreed to in writing by the City and County, consistent with Oregon Administrative Rules, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. 9.Conversion of land within the Urban Growth Areato urban uses shall occur upon annexation and be based on consideration ofapplicable annexation policiesin the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. 10.The City shall discourage the extension of public facilities into the Urban Growth Area without annexation. However, if the extension of public facilities into the Urban Growth Areais necessary because of an emergency, health hazard or the City determines it is otherwise desirable, the facilities may be extended subject to terms and conditions contained in a service contract between the City and the property owner. 11.The City shall be the provider of public water, sanitary sewer and stormwater facilities within the Urban Growth Boundaryunless otherwise agreed to by the City, the County, and any other applicable party. The City shall be responsible for preparing the public facilities plan for all lands within the Urban Growth Boundary. Page 4 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 36 II.AMENDMENTS TOTHE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARYAND THE URBAN GROWTH AREA The Urban Growth Boundary and all Comprehensive Plan designations applicable to land within the Urban Growth Areashall be reviewed by the City and County as required by LCDC under itsPeriodic Review rules or as the City updates its Comprehensive Plan where County concurrence is necessary. These, and any other amendments to the Urban Growth Boundary, Comprehensive Planor zoning in the Urban Growth Area shall be reviewed and approved in the manner provided below. 1.City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments for landwithin the city limits: Whenever the City proposes an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan for landwithin the city limits, the City shall provide notice and request for comments on the proposed amendment to the County at least 20 days before the City’s initial evidentiary public hearing. 2.City initiated Comprehensive Plan amendments withinthe Urban Growth Areaand proposed Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Reserve Areaamendments: A.Upon receipt of notice of Periodic Review, the City shall review its Comprehensive Plan to determine if it needs to be updated. The City may also propose Comprehensive Plan amendments, including Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Reserve Areaamendments, at times other than those specified by LCDC’sPeriodic Review Order. The City shall forward proposed amendmentstogether with all exhibits, findings of fact, and conclusions of law regarding the amendments to the County for review and comments at least 20 days before the City’s initial evidentiary public hearing. The City shallbe responsible for providing necessary notice of amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD"). Page 5 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 37 The City and County shall jointly submit one notice of a proposed Urban Growth Boundaryor Urban Reserve Areaamendment to DLCD, as required by administrative rule, at least 35 days before the City’s first evidentiary hearing. The City shall hold one or more Planning Commission and one or more City Council hearings. Upon conclusion of its deliberations, if the City Council concludes it willapprove a proposed amendment, it shall adopt a resolution stating its intent and adopt findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the Council's decision. B.After adopting a resolution of intent to amend its comprehensive plan the City shall forward the proposed amendment to the County for hearing along with any comments from DLCD or other interested parties received by the City. Within 90 days after the date the City provides its resolution of intent along with all supporting studies, exhibits, comments and findings of fact and conclusions of law to the County, the County shall hold a public hearing on the City's proposal. If the County decides to reject the proposal or wishes to propose modifications, either party may request a joint meeting to resolve differences. C.Upon concurrence by the County, both the City and County shall formally amend their respective Comprehensive Plans to reflect the agreed upon change. The County shall forward its signed ordinance approving anUrban Growth Boundary or Urban Reserve Areaamendment to the City, and the City shall submit a joint notice of adoption to DLCD as required by administrative rule. 3.County initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments within the Urban Growth Area or Urban Growth Boundary Amendments: A.Upon receipt of notice of Periodic Review, the County shall review its Comprehensive Plan to determine if it needs to be updated. The County may Page 6 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 38 also propose amendments at times other than those specifiedby LCDC’s Periodic Review Order. The County shall develop proposed amendments and forward them together with all exhibits, findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the amendments to the City for review and comments at least 20 days before the County’s initial evidentiary public hearing. Within 90 days after the County provides the proposed amendments to the City, the City shall schedule at least one public hearing by the City Planning Commission. The County shall be responsible for providing necessary notice of amendments to DLCD. B.The City Planning Commission shall hold one or more public hearings. After the Planning Commission has concluded its hearing(s), it shall make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council and the County Board of Commissioners shall each hold a public hearing or may jointly conduct one or more public hearings. The two governing bodies may deliberate together on the proposed amendment(s). At the conclusion of those deliberations, if the conclusion is to approve the proposed amendment(s), the City Council and the Board of Commissioners shall each adopt an ordinance to amend their respective comprehensive plans accompanied by agreed upon findings of fact and conclusions of law. 4.County Zoning Amendments in Urban Growth Area:Whenever theCounty proposes an amendment to its zoning map or regulations for lands within the Urban Growth Area, the County shall provide notice and request for comments on the proposed amendment to the City at least 20 days before the County’s initial evidentiary public hearing. 5.City Zoning Amendments in city limits: Whenever the City proposes an amendment to its zoning map or regulations for lands within the city limits, the City shall provide notice and request for comments on the proposed amendment to the County at least 20 days before the City’s initial evidentiary public hearing. Page 7 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 39 6.In amending the Urban Growth Boundary, the city limits or their respective comprehensive plans, the City and County shall follow all procedures as required by Oregon State Law. In the case of an amendment to Urban Growth Boundary, the governing bodies shall base the amendment on consideration of Goal 14 (Urbanization), applicable planning statutes and Administrative Rules. III.ADMINISTRATION OF ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS In making land use decisions within the Urban Growth Area, the City and County agree to the following: 1.The County shall provide notice and request for comments on conditional uses, variances, adjustments, land divisions, property line adjustments and administrative reviews within the Urban Growth Areato the City at least 20 days before the County's initial evidentiary hearing or land use decision when no hearing is held. The County shall provide the City a notice of decision for all such applications in the Urban Growth Area when requested by the City. 2.Applications for uses permitted outright in the applicable County zone, including ministerial actions, will not involve any notice or request for comments to the City. 3.The County may require City development standards for development within the Urban Growth Area, including dedication of additional right-of-way or application of special street setbacks when requested by the City. The Countymay require compliance with City development standards, in lieu of County standards if the development is other than a single-family dwelling. 4.For development approved under (1) or (2), if public sewer and water facilities or city limits are located within 300 feet of the subject property, the County shall require that the development connect to the facilities unless use of wells or other means are allowed in writing by the City. The City will require any property connecting to City sanitary sewer or water facilities to annex to the City. The City shall provide the County Page 8 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 40 information about the location of public sewer and water. The County may approve development of permitted uses on properties more than 300 feet from the city limits, or from a public sewer or water facility using wells and DEQ approved wastewater disposal systems. 5.If a proposed use is not specifically identified in the Marion County Urban Zone Code, and the County is proposing an interpretation classifying the use as permitted in the applicable zone under the interpretation provisions of the Zone Code, the County shall give the City an opportunity to comment before the County makes a final land use decision. IV.MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK This Agreement is required to be consistent with the Urban Growth Management Framework of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. The Framework is a coordination planning strategy that provides guidelines a city may choose to follow when coordinating urban growth boundary needs with the County. The decision on how to use any applicable coordination guidelines of the Framework is up to a city and there can be several approaches taken by cities to coordinate planning efforts with the County consistent with the Framework. To facilitate coordination between the City and County, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended to incorporate applicable policies and guidelines found in the Marion County Urban Growth Management Plan. The City shall consider applicable Woodburn Comprehensive Plan policies and guidelines when making land use decisions within the Urban Growth Area. V. EXPANSION LIMITS AND URBAN RESERVEAREA 1.For 20 years from the date the Decision on Remand is final and acknowledged by LCDC, neither the City nor County will seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary in the following areas: • West of the portion of Butteville Road NE, as depicted on Attachment 2. Page 9 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 41 • Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing Urban Growth Boundary, as depicted on Attachment 2. 2.Woodburn intends the Urban Growth Boundaryexpansion area known as the Southwest Industrial Reserve comprising approximately190 acres, located,east of Butteville Road and north of Parr Road to be used for larger industrial users. Specific lot size standards shall be established limiting the size and number of future lots for these properties. 3.Woodburn recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both agricultural practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as part of their regular business practice. Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the landto the west of Butteville RoadNE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the region’s agricultural industry. Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural uses and to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest Industrial Reserve and other urban uses, the City and County will: • Ensure that the design of and any improvements to the portion of Butteville RoadNE serving the Southwest Industrial Reserve not encourage any urban traffic unrelated to the industrial use in the immediate area and unrelated to agricultural uses west of Butteville Road. • As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial Reserve consideration shall be given to methods to mitigate impacts from development and adjacent agricultural activities this can include buffers or increased setbacks along Butteville Road, provide that any buffers needed to reduce conflicts between the industrial uses and agricultural activity west of Butteville RoadNE are located inside the Urban Growth Boundary. 4.As part of the Decision on Remand the Urban Reserve Areadepicted onAttachment 3 is created: Page 10 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 42 A.The County shall apply a rural resource zone that establishes a minimum parcel size of at least 80 acres, notwithstanding provisions for the division of landinto smaller parcels for certain non-resource uses as allowed by the zoning. B.Dwellings on any new parcels created shall be clustered to the maximum extent possible, taking into account parcel dimensions, natural hazards, proximity to roadways, natural features, future platting potential,nearbydwellingsand other similar features. C.The County shall continue to be responsible for building code administration and land use regulation until such time as the property is annexed into the City. D.No sewer or water service will be provided while the property remains outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Fire protection will continue to be provided by the Woodburn Fire District.While remaining outside the Urban Growth Boundary, parks and transportation facilities will be provided by the County. While remaining outside the Urban Growth Boundary, stormwater requirements will continue to be applied by the County. VI.AREA OF MUTUAL CONCERN The area of land identified in Attachment 4,attached to this Agreement, lies outside the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundaryand shall be knownas the Area of Mutual Concern. Land use decisions within this area may have a significant impact on future growth plans of the City of : Woodburn. The County recognizes this interest and agrees to coordinate with the City as follows 1.The County shall retain responsibility for land use decisions and actions concerning and affecting lands within the Area of Mutual Concern. 2.The County shall provide notice and request for commentsof pending land useactions within the Area of Mutual Concernto the City at least 20 days before the initial evidentiary hearing orland use decision when no public hearing is held. Where the first Page 11 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 43 scheduled action on a proposal is a public hearing and the City responds in writing within 10 days requesting additional time in which to review the proposal, the City’s time for submitting comments may be extended until the next regularly scheduled hearing before that body. If no additional hearing is involved, the City shall be allowed an additional 10 days to submit comments. 3.The County shall discourage development that would preclude future redevelopment and urbanization of the area. The County shall encourage applicants for land divisions to submit plans for the efficient future re-division of the land to urban densities. 4.The County shall send notice of land use decisions within the Area of Mutual Concern to the City when requested by the City, when such decisions are issued. Applicable appeal periods set by County ordinance or State statute shall apply to such decisions. 5.The County shall send notice of public hearings to the City within the times prescribed by County ordinance or State law prior to hearings on appeals of such decisions, when requested by the City. 6.The City may at its discretion develop studies as to the suitability, feasibility, and effectiveness of extending urban facilities such as water and sewer service to land within the Area of Mutual Concern. Such studies shall not be construed by the County or others as being a violation of the City’s orCounty’s Comprehensive Plans. The City will not, however, extend such facilities into this area without first obtaining appropriate amendments to the City and County’s Comprehensive Plans. This provision is intended to recognize that certain facility planning requires consideration of timetables that extend beyond the 20-year planning period recognized inthe City and it is therefore appropriate for specialized facility planning to be undertaken for the Area of Mutual Concern. Page 12 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 44 VII.APPEALS If no mutual agreement can be achieved in the course of reviewing amendments or land use applications as noted in Sections II, III and V, each party retains its right to appeal as provided in State law. IT IS HEREBY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that this Agreement shall remain in effect unless terminated by one of the parties giving the other party a thirty day (30) termination notice, in writing. It is further understood that this Agreement may be reviewed by the City and County every year. The City and County shall authorize the execution of this Agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the respective parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be signed in their behalf the day and year first above written. MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ______________________________________________ Chair ______________________________________________ Commissioner ______________________________________________ Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ Page 13 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 45 Marion County Legal Counsel CITY OFWOODBURN ______________________________________________ Mayor ______________________________________________ City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ Woodburn City Attorney Page 14 – CITY OF WOODBURN/MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT 46 P S / P O C O C PS/P P S / P P S / P O C P S / P O C G O C C M R M R M R 47 O C PS/P M R R1S R1S 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitation R D U EA AT H C D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P N O I N U Y A 48 W N O D S I 5L R 6 L AD R Y MYR EE C A D NTVR R S Y A R R E L ATA D L W IS P VE R E H D E TER TT N R U G N E BEE R CR G E R E V B )E T V S P (KCD R YEN W 7 CIRRA O L1 E 5 IR VEM N A AND DLCR OOE W- HC 9 E 1 N) IT 2 V PP ( Y DR NEE RGREV E S W R I C H T S E A T IE R VS A A K EE R D N T EP AVE LI D S Y NA ON L O WULI J T NH I S B O Y RR T O JS N EVA DNAL DOOW S EE VA D NAL D VOO W E TS ESIDA RAP ET V S A T AICA CA ES V R A E A I P C O A O C TT AH S S T S A S A D T E NMV IA AH RAD LEC G C U A TS EIRI ARP N Y C M W H E G V A R E V A E E EVA E VILO WV O I L B L IL W O W E N - 9 1 2 Y EVA M LAP K W E E RH C L E E A V C T E A N A E E ST Y R A O S W MN AO S CI L Y EVA L EROMA SCYSA Y C A T 5 S E T ) A T T V S R P STI MIL YT IC (E T N N I T L C M N E UVA WOL OLIW L S P R A C ) Y T A V W L I)P A ( RT STI MIL Y TIC V EN FD PL A(A T D NO N AO R SL OL N AI R A W ER HR ED T E RV O RC N I N5 R 6 O RT T M G C N ID E L R L R UE E BL L I V E T T U B T S 9 T 1 2 S Y W H E T A T S K D D CR N I2E L LI V E MT T U B R O C c T SM 1 2 7 RM DR ELLIVE TTUB 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitation (No.1) 9 1 2 Y W H E T A T S Y A W L I A R E F A T N A S N R E N H TL R OY N E N N O T F G NA I L T R S U EB N DD R R Y R A C E I L L B U P ) 8 1 5 R C ( D R N U R B E L 9 1 2 Y W H E T A T S YR A D N UO B H T W O RG N A B RU T N E RR U C 49 DR EL LIV ETT UB 5 E T A T S R E T N I E N D R L O O HC S N OI NU 50 EN DR YRREF SENOO B E N D R E V O R G R O B R A Exhibit 4 Legislative Findings on Remand Woodburn Periodic Review Work Task 2 and UGB in Response to RemandAmendment I.INTRODUCTION This matter came before the City of Woodburn on remand from the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Land Conservation and Development Commission(LCDC). These findings and the already existingevidentiary record support the City’s decision on remand to: expand the urban growth boundary (UGB), designate an urban reserve area (URA), and establish two long-term expansion limitations. The UGB expansion consists of approximately 619 gross acres. This includes approximately 190 acres for industrial use, 23 acres for commercial use, and 406 acres for residential use. The URA is west and south of Parr Road, and consists of approximately 230 gross acres. The two 20-year expansion limits are Expansion Limit No. 1, located along Butteville 1 Road, and Expansion Limit No. 2, located east of Highway 99E at Carl Road. As part of completingPeriodic Review Work Task 2 and the UGB in Response to Remand amendment, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the City of Woodburn/Marion County Urban Growth Coordination Agreement(Coordination Agreement)are amended to incorporate the two 20-year UGB Expansion Limits, to the west of Butteville Road and to the east of Highway 99E at Carl Road. The Woodburn UGB will not be expanded for any purpose beyond these limits for a period of 20 years from the date this decision is final, including any appeals. A.CaseHistory On July 30, 1997, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) approved the City of Woodburn’s Periodic Review Work Program. All Periodic Review Work Tasks have been completed by Woodburn and approved by DLCD except Work Task 2, the Commercial and Industrial Lands Inventory. Work Task 2required Woodburn to evaluate its commercial and industrial needs over a 20-year period and initiate any changes to accommodate needs, which could include changes to plan and zone designations and the UGB. 1 See Attachment1: UGB in Response to RemandMap. 51 Following is the timeline of relevant events carrying out this Periodic Review: November 2, 2005:Ordinance 2391was finally adopted by the Woodburn City Council approving a UGB expansion and other Periodic Review Work Tasks. July 19, 2006: Marion County Board of Commissioners co-adopted the UGB expansion. August 3, 2006: City and County submit Ordinance 2391 and co-adopting ordinanceto DLCD. DLCD determines the submittal is complete on August 4. August 22 - 24, 2006: Ten objections are timely filed. January 25, 2007: LCDCheld a hearing on Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment and made an oral decision to approve Woodburn’s submittal. February 14, 2007: LCDC issued written Approval Order 07-WKTASK-001720. April 12, 2007:1000 Friends of Oregon, Marion County Farm Bureau, Lolita Carl, Kathleen Carl, Diane Mikkelson, Carla Mikkelson, and Friends of Marion County petitioned theOregonCourt of Appeals for judicial review of LCDC's Order. September 8, 2010: Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LCDC’s decision, in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Woodburn I), 237 Or App 213 (2010). Appellate judgment entered November 30, 2010. January 12, 2011: LCDC held a hearing on a draft revised order and heard argument from the parties on the record. LCDC again orally approved Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment. March 16, 2011: LCDC issued Approval Order 11-WKTASK-001802. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 2 52 May 12, 2011:1000 Friends of Oregon, Marion County Farm Bureau, Lolita Carl, Kathleen Carl, Diane Mikkelson and Friends of Marion County petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals for judicial review of LCDC's order. January 2, 2014:Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LCDC’s decision in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Woodburn II), 260 Or App 444 (2014). July 24 - 25, 2014: LCDCunanimously voted to initiate a mediation assessment, to be conducted by Oregon Consensus, because mediation had "the potential to resolve the City's UGB amendment.” December 23, 2014: Oregon Consensus submits its Assessment Report to LCDC, concluding: “While there are significant challenges in mediating a solution to the dispute over the City of Woodburn’s proposal for expanding industrial land within an amended urban growth boundary, there is a possibility of success if parties are willing to (1) seriously examine their own interests and objectives, (2) strive to understand the interests of the other parties, and (3) seek solutions that meet multiple interests and avoid the significant economic and social costs of alternative forums. It is suggested that the parties use the selection of a mediator as an opportunity to practice collaboration.” : All parties to Woodburn IIenter into mediation. March 30, 2015 April and May, 2015:All parties to Woodburn IIsign a Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement. May 21, 2015: LCDC passed a motion to“remand the City of Woodburn’s Periodic Review Work Task 2 and UGB amendment for further action and establish a resubmittal date of December 1, 2015.” Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 3 53 B.Oregon Courtof Appeals Decisions On remand to LCDC the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded: “Because we conclude that LCDC again did not adequately explain why the City’s expansion of its UGB to include an additional 409 acres for industrial use is consistent with pertinent law, we reverse the order and remand for reconsideration.” Woodburn II, 260 Or App at 446. “We have carefully reviewed LCDC’s entire order on remand, and we conclude that LCDC did not adequately explain the reasons that led it to conclude the City’s UGB amendment complied with applicable law.” Woodburn II, 260 Or App at 460. C.Mediation Process All parties to Woodburn IIentered into mediation on March 30, 2015 to resolve issues and continued litigation related to the City's UGB amendment. This mediation was successful and a Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement was approved by 1000 Friends of Oregon, Friends of Marion County, Theodora Schrier (as personal representative for Lolita Carl, deceased), Kathleen Carl, Diane Mikkelson, MarionCounty Farm Bureau, DLCD, Marion County and the City of Woodburn. For purposes of transparency and legal defensibility, it is important to place in context how the Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement relates to the land use decision that is explained and justified by these Legislative Findings on Remand. This matter –the City of Woodburn’s Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the related urban growth boundary amendment - is on remand from the Court of Appeals toLCDCand from LCDC to the City of Woodburn and Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 4 54 Marion County. Any subsequent land use decisions made by the City of Woodburn, and Marion County, and work task approval decisions made by LCDCpursuant to that remand must comply with Oregon land use law, including the decisions of the Oregon Court of Appeals, as well as laws regarding land use decision-making processes. Through mediation, the parties have agreed to a map and substantive elements of Work Task 2 and the UGB decision, reflected in the framework for the anticipated future land use actions. If the anticipated future land use actions conform to this framework, the parties have agreed to forego any future legal challenges regarding Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the related UGB amendment. Pursuant to the Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Court of Appeals’ decisions, LCDC remanded the underlying decision to the City. II.PROCEDURAL MATTERS ON REMAND A.City Procedure on Remand Absent specific instructions from a reviewing tribunal or applicable local regulations, a city is entitled to limit the scope of a remand proceeding to that of addressing the legal deficiencies articulated by the appellate opinion ordering the remand. In the instant case, it is completely appropriate for the City to adopt a revised Work Task 2 and related UGB in Response to Remand amendment, relying upon relevant portions of the already existing record to better explain and justify its UGB action. Having already afforded extensive opportunities to present evidence over the course of these UGB proceedings, the City is not obligated, on remand, to afford an opportunity to present new evidence, but may proceed on the already existing record. B.Record on Remand The remand proceedings were conducted based on the existing evidentiary record submitted by the City of Woodburn to DLCD on August 3, 2006, as part of its submission of Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 5 55 Periodic Review Work Tasks 1-4, 7-11, and a related UGB amendment. In particular, these Legislative Findings on Remand rely on and incorporate by reference the Woodburn UGB Justification Report (Winterbrook Planning, October 2005), and Buildable Lands Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, July 2005).Much of the Justification Report and Buildable Lands Inventory provide the basis for this decision. In any instances where these documents conflict with, or are inconsistent with, these Legislative Findings on Remand, the language of Legislative Findings on Remand shall prevail. III.APPLICABLE LAW A.General Evaluation and expansion of a UGB requires application of several interrelated statutes, statewide land use Goals, and administrative rules: ORS 197.298, Goal 14, and OAR chapter 660. 2 Woodburn opted to complete its PeriodicReview under the new Goal 14.As part of its Goal 14 UGB analysis, Woodburn must address capacity needs under Goal 9 (Economic Development) and Goal 10 (Housing), and related statutes and administrative rules, OAR chapter 660, divisions 8 and 9. LCDC’s administrative rules implementing Goal 9 were adopted on December 1, 2005 and not doapply. The division 9 rules "Industrial and Commercial Development" adopted by LCDC prior to that do apply. B.Amount of Land A key issue that was extensively briefed in both Woodburn I and Woodburn IIis whether the City included more employment land in its original UGB expansion proposal than was necessary to accommodate its needs over the 20-year planning period in violation of Goals 9 and 14. This issue, with the sameapplicable legal standards, must also be addressed in justifying the UGB in Response to Remand. 2 Rec. Item 10, p.1372; ER-4; Remand Rec. 0006. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 6 56 The Oregon Court of Appeals has explained how ORS 197.298and Goal 14 are to be applied to a UGB expansion. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (McMinnville), 244 Or App 239 (2011). Although that case was based on the old Goal 14, thenew Goal 14 and OAR chapter 660, division 24 were designed to clarify and streamline the existing Goal 14, not change it 3 substantively. The applicable legal requirements are found in ORS 197.712, Goal 9, OAR chapter 660, division 9 (2005), and Goal 14. The first step is to determine the “amount of land needed” and a “differentiation of land use types according to their land consumption attributes,” under Goal 14. McMinnville,244 Or App at 256. Goal 14 requires that (emphasis added): “Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the following: (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a 20-year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments; and (2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space, or any combination of the need categories in this subsection (2). “In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need.” The Goal 9 ruleprovides that “\[t\]he total acreage of land designated in each site category shall at least equal the projected land needs for each category during the 20-year planning period.” OAR 660-009-0025 (2005) To accomplish that, compatible employment uses with similar site 3 Goal 14 was amended, effective April 28, 2005. As stated on DLCD’swebsite, the new Goal 14 and OAR chapter 660, division 24were designed “to clarify and streamline the UGB amendment process,”not to change it substantivelyhttp://www.oregon.gov/LCD/rulemaking_2005-07.shtml. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 7 57 characteristics are combined into “broad site categories.” OAR 660-009-0025(1)Jurisdictions should limit incompatible uses on and adjacent to sites as necessary to protect them for their intended employment function. Under Goal 10 and the Goal 10 rule, Woodburn must ensure there is sufficient capacity to meet its housing needs for the planning period, meaning “housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels.” OAR 660-008-0005(6). This requires that “\[s\]ufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection.” OAR 660-008-0010. If there is a need to accommodate population or employment growth, the jurisdiction must first look to land inside the existing UGB to accommodate that need. Goal 14; McMinnville, 244 Or App at 255-57; 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of North Plains, 27 Or LUBA 373, 390,aff’d 130 Or App 406, 882 P2d 1130 (1994). C.Alternative Sites Analysis If some or all of the identified need cannot be accommodated inside the UGB, the jurisdiction then moves to the second step: “application of ORS 197.298 (1) and (3), together with Goal 14, to locate and justify inclusion of land to fill that quantified need.” McMinnville, 244 Or App at 257. This starts with the identification of buildable land contiguous to the UGB. Id.at 26- 27. The jurisdiction must follow the priority statute, ORS 197.298, sequentially. City ofWest Linn, 201 Or App 419, 440 (2005); D.S.Parklane Development, Inc. v Metro, 165 Or App 1, 20- 21 (2000). As applied here, the City, when seeking a UGB expansion, must look first to any lands 4 designated as urban reserves, none of which exist around Woodburn.The City must then look to 4 The Urban Reserve Area adopted with this decision is not an acknowledged urban reserve available for consideration in this analysis. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 8 58 5 “second priority” lands - those designated as exception areas. If the amount of land designated as exception areas is “inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed,” Woodburn would 6 next look to the third category of “marginal” lands. Finally, the City may consider the “fourth priority” lands –those designated for agriculture or forestry. In selecting from among agricultural lands, higher priority for inclusion in the UGB must be given to those lands of lower productive capability as measured by soil classification. ORS 197.298 (2). That is, agricultural lands with poorer quality soils must be included in the UGB before those with more valuable soils. Class I 7 and II soils are the most valuable agricultural soils. If the amount ofland within a category exceeds the need, then the jurisdiction must use the boundary location factors of Goal 14, “consistent with ORS 197.298,” to choose among those “like” lands. The “relevant Goal 14 considerations in assessing the adequacy of land in a priority class under ORS 197.298 (1)” are what were factors 5 and 7 in oldGoal 14, and are now factors 3 and 4 innew Goal 14: “(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and (4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.” McMinnville, 244 Or App at 265. A decision to include or exclude land from a UGB must be based on a balancing of all these factors, rather than reliance on any one factor. Parklane, 165 Or App at 25; 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Metro (Ryland Homes), 174 Or App 406, 409-10 (2001). It is possible to include in a UGB expansion lands of lower priority ahead of lands of higher priority under ORS 197.298, but only if one or more of the three narrow reasons described in ORS 197.298(3)(a)-(c) is found to exist. Those exceptions to the priorities are: 5 “Exception areas” are those lands for which an exception to the statewide planning goals for farm or forest lands, taken under ORS 197.732, has been acknowledged. 6 No marginal lands exist in Marion County. 7 Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agriculture; ORS 197.298. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 9 59 “(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons: (a)Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; (b)Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (c)Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands.” IV.LAND USE DECISION - UGB A.Summary of Decision Inthis decisionon remand, the City approves a UGB in Response to Remand expansion, 8 the designation of an URA, and the establishment of two long-term expansion limitations.The UGB expansion consists of approximately 619 gross acres. This includes approximately 190 acres for industrial use, 23 acres for commercial use, and 406 acres for residential use. The URA is west and south of Parr Road, and consists of approximately 230 gross acres. The two 20-year expansion limits are Expansion Limit No. 1, located along Butteville Road, and Expansion Limit No. 2, located east of Highway 99E at Carl Road. The 190 acres brought into the UGB for industrial purposes will form the Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR). The City’s 2020 Employment Forecast, Industrial Land Needs Analysis, Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), Economic Development Strategy (EDS), and Target Industry Site Suitability support this expansion of the UGB for industrial use. In particular, these inform the City’s decisions to plan, zone, andprotect the 190 industrial expansion acres for 8 See Attachment1: UGB in Response to RemandMap. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 10 60 future industrial use consistent with the Targeted Industries report. As explained below, the amount of employment land included in the UGB is justified by the traditional employee-per-acre method of estimating future industrial land needs. The expansion areas for residential use consist of the Southwest residential expansion area (approximately 151 gross acres), the North expansion area (consisting of approximately 79 gross acres), the Northwest area (consisting of approximately 155 gross acres), and two small areas in the southeast (consisting of approximately 21 gross acres) totaling approximately 406 acres. As part of the Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the Coordination Agreement are amended to incorporate the two 20-year UGB Expansion Limits, to the west of Butteville Road and to the east of Highway 99E at Carl Road. The Woodburn UGB will not be expanded for any purpose beyond these two limits identified on Attachment 1 for a period of 20 years from the date this decision (Periodic Review Work Task 2 and UGB) are final, including any appeals. B.Need 1.Population Projection to 2020 In accordance with state law, the City of Woodburn's Population Projection is for a total of 9 Woodburn is experiencing growth in two major population cohorts:a 34,919 people by 2020. young population and an older population, both of which need and are demanding smaller housing 10 options (small-lot single family, townhouse, and multi-family). Net migration accounted for approximately 63percentof population growth in Marion 11 County in the decade prior to the time period for which this UGB is being evaluated. The hourly 12 wage upon moving to Marion County was less than thestatewide average.Per capita personal 9 Rec. Item 10, p. 614 (Woodburn Ordinance No. 2391, November 2, 2005). 10 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1397, 1399 (UGB Justification Report, pp. 29, 31). 11 Rec. Item 10, p. 1024 (Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, p. 2-6). 12 Id., pp. 1024-25; pp. 2-6, 2-7. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 11 61 13 income in Marion County has also been below the State and national average.Employment growth in the 3-county region is projected to be overwhelmingly in the Services, Retail Trade, and 14 Government sectors.These socio-economic trends support the need for more diverse, smaller, and affordable housing types. 2.Employment Projection to 2020 Woodburn projects 8,374 new employees by the year 2020(for a total of 18,762 jobs). Of that, Woodburn projects a total of 2,710 new industrial jobs and 5,664 new commercial and other 15 jobs by the year 2020. Woodburn’s consultant, ECONorthwest, analyzed which industries are likely to locate or expand in Woodburn over the long-term, extending beyond the time period of this UGB 16 evaluation. Woodburn’s consultant described 13 industries most likely to locate or grow in Woodburn, which have a variety of different site size and location preferences, ranging from 1-acre sites in 17 mixed-use areas to 20+ acre sites, to business parks, to areas restricted to industry.The transportation needs also vary, from industries that desire foot traffic and local shoppers to those 18 that move materials by freight and need good road access for trucks. 3.Non-Industrial Employment As described in the UGBJustification Report, the current Woodburn UGB and two commercial expansion areas comprising 23 acres can accommodate the City’s projected non- industrial employment growth. The City continues to rely on the UGB Justification Report for the accommodation of non-industrial employment. 13 Id., p. 1025; p, 2-7. 14 Id., p. 1028; p. 2-10. 15 Rec. Item 10,p. 1096, Table 11 (ECONorthwest memorandum, April 29, 2002, p. 18). 16 Rec. Item 10,pp. 1054-1075 (Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, p. 4-3 through p. B-4). 17 Rec. Item 10,pp. 1059-1060 (Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, pp. 4-8, 4-9). 18 Id., pp. 1072-75(pp. B-1 through B-4). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 12 62 4.Industrial Employment Woodburn currently has126 acres of vacant, partially vacant, and redevelopable 19 This land is available for future industrial uses, either by new employment land within the UGB. employersor by existing employers expanding their businesses. Employment density for the existing UGB is anticipated at 7.6 employee-per-acre, since much of this land supply is already partially developed. The existing land supply will accommodate 958 new employees. After accounting for the industrial use accommodated on the 126 acres inside the UGB, there is a capacity need to accommodate approximately 1,752 new industrial employees through the UGB in Response to Remandexpansion. The record demonstrates that a reasonable employees-per-acre 20 ratio for Woodburn is 10 employees per acre. Therefore, approximately 175 net buildable acres are needed for new industrial capacity. The City's addition of 190 acres of industrially designated lands accounts for theindividual parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent to the City limits. 5.Residential and Public/Semi Public Land Needs On remand, Woodburn has re-examined its residential land need and supply. This revised analysis is based on the detailedparcel by parcel capacity data in Appendix A of the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). The revised acreages and capacities below reflect this more accurate information. In addition, the City has revised its projected household size to 3.1 persons per 21 household, reflecting the Woodburn-specific data in the 2000 census. Based on information in the record, the City has also determined that one-thirdof its projected park need can be met on 22 constrained land, reducing overall public and semi-public land needsby 21 net buildable acres. The UGB adopted on remand will have a de minimus one acre surplus of residential land. 19 Rec. Item 10,p. 1390(UGB Justification Report, p. 22). 20 Rec. Item 10,p. 1278, Table 1 (ECONorthwest memorandum of October 20, 2003, p. 2). 21 Rec. Item 10,p. 1396 (UGB Justification Report, p. 28 fn 22.);Also Rec. Item No. 3 pp. 653-665 (See also DLCD letter dated April 21, 2004 stating, “The household size projection used by the consultant \[2.9\] is not predicated on a factual basis, but on national trends that do not accurately describe the conditions in Woodburn.”) 22 Rec. Item 10, p. 1402 (UGB Justification Report, p. 34).Woodburn has an 86 acre surplus of “Natural Areas” thatcan partially meet park needs. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 13 63 Table 1 identifies vacant, partially vacant and infill residential lands within the exiting UGB as well as areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB to meet residential needs. There are 681 gross acres and 466 net buildable acres available to meet residential needs through the year 2020 in the existing UGB. Expansion areas total 406 gross acres or 276 net buildable acres available to meet future needs; totaling 742 net buildable acres, both within the existing UGB and proposed UGB expansion area. Table 1 - Vacant Residential Areas (Existing residential areas within the existing UGB and lands proposed in the UGB expansion) Residential Areas Gross AcresNet Buildable Acres Existing UGB (Vacant, partially 681466 23 vacant, & infill) Southwest (Parr Rd) Residential 151119 Expansion Area 24 North Residential Expansion 7937 25 Area NW (Butteville Rd) Expansion 155112.5 Area 26 SE Expansion Area(Residential 217.5 27 Portion) TOTALS1,087742 Calculation of Need Table 2 projects both population and housing needs through 2020. Woodburn is projected to grow by approximately 14,059 over the planning period, resulting in the need for 4,647 needed housing units, or 2,788 single family housing units and 1,859 multi-family housing units. 23 Rec. Item 10, pp.1179-1187 (Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), Appendix A, Tables 11, 12 and 13). 24 Rec. Item10, pp.1187-1188(BLI, Appendix A, Table 14). 25 Id. 26 Rec. Item 4, p. 1028 (Periodic Review (PR) and UGB amendment p. 12); Also Rec. Item 10 pp.1188-1189 for net buildable acreage (BLI, Appendix A, Table 15). 27 Rec. Item 4, p. 1028. (PR and UGB amendment p. 12); Also Rec. Item 10 p. 1408 for net buildable acreage (UGB Justification Report, p. 40). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 14 64 Table 2- Projected Population and Housing Needs 2000 - 2020 PopulationInstitutionalNetHousehold Needed Vacancy Total Single Multi- IncreasePopulation 29 Population SizeDwelling RateDU’sFamily Family (2000-2020)28 Units 30(60%) (40%) (5%)Needed (DUs)DU’s 31 DU’s 32 14,05933713,7223.144262214,6472,7881,859 DU The UGB Justification Report identified the need for 210net buildable acres of Public and 33 Semi-Public (P/SP) lands, intended to accommodate schools, parks, religious institutions, etc. The UGB Justification Report further indicated that P/SP needs are typically met on residentially 34 designated land becausethe uses typically serve local residents.Evidence in the record indicates 35 that some park needs can be met on unbuildable (flood plain, wetlands, etc.) lands.Table 3 reduces the amount of buildable land needed for parks by on-thirdto 42 net buildable acres, a reduction of 21 acres, to account for the partial accommodation of park needs on unbuildable land. This results in a total of 189 net buildable acres needed to accommodate P/SP uses. Table 3 - Public and Semi-Public Land Needs From UGB Justification Report Revised Public,Semi-Public Need (net buildable acres) (net buildable acres) Schools108108 Parks6342 Institutional1111 Religious2828 Total210189 28 Rec. Item 10, p. 1387(UGB Justification Report, p. 19). 29 Rec. Item 10, p. 1396(UGB Justification Report, p. 28). 30 Id. 31 Rec. Item 10, p. 1382. (UGB Justification Report, p. 14). 32 Id. 33 Rec. Item 10, p. 1402 (UGB Justification Report, p. 34). 34 Id. 35 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1400 - 1401(UGBJustification Report, pp. 32-33). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 15 65 Calculation of How Need Will Be Met The existing UGB can accommodate a total of 3,041 low density residential (LDR) and 36 medium density residential (MDR) dwelling units if every parcel develops at maximum capacity. New development will necessarily occur at between 80percentand 100percentof maximum allowable density; this analysis assumes a mid-range average of 90percent. Table 4 identifies the LDR and Nodal LDR capacity within the existing UGB and proposed expansion areas. They can accommodate a total of 3224 dwelling units at 90percentof maximum 37 allowable density. Table 4 - Meeting the need for 2788 LDR dwelling units NeedExisting UGB NW North Total LDR Surplus in Surplus capacity (90% expansion Expansion supply in dwelling available for Area of maximum capacityexisting units(supply public and semi- (90% of (90% of capacity of UGB & minus need)public uses in net 3,041 du in maximum maximum NW & N buildable acres BLI Appendix capacity of capacity of expansion A, Tables 11, 293 du in BLI 248 du in BLI areas 12, 13)Appendix A, Appendix A, Table 15)Table 14) LDR2,788 1,364 du264 du223 du 3,224-5.5 du per net dwelling 2,788=436 acre Nodal units (du)surplus436/5.5=79 LDR1,373 du Total2,737 du264 du223 du 3,224 du 436 (DU 79 net buildable Surplus)acre surplus 38 Notes: LDR land in the existing UGB is projected at 5.5 dwelling units per net buildable acre.The 436 surplus dwelling unit capacity divided by the assumed density of 5.5 units per net acre in theUGB Justification Report yields a surplus of 79acres available for public and semi-public uses. It is assumed that public andsemi-public uses will locate on LDR-zoned land in the existing UGB and the north expansion area, rather than in the highly parcelized Butteville Road exception area. It is unlikely that all new development will occur at 100 percent of maximum allowable capacity. On the other hand, Woodburn has adopted measures requiring new development to achieve at least 80 percent of allowable density. It is also unlikely that development will occur at 80 percent that is the minimum that is legally allowable. So new development will occur at between 80 percent and 100 percent of maximum allowable density. 90 percent is a reasonable mid-range average. It does not mean Woodburn is committing to hit 90 percent in every development. Some development will occur at over 90 percent of allowed density and some will be less. 36 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1179-1187 (BLI, Appendix AParcel Tables, including: Table 11 “Vacant Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”, Table 12 “Infill Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”, and Table 13 “Partially Vacant Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”). 37 Rec Item 10, pp. 1179-1187 (BLI, Appendix AParcel Tables, including: Table 11 “Vacant Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”, Table 12 “Infill Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”, and Table 13 “Partially Vacant Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”). Rec. Item 10, p. 1409(UGB Justification Report, p. 41). 38 Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 16 66 After meeting the need for 2,788 LDR dwelling units there is a surplus of 79 net buildable acres to meet public and semi-public land needs within the existing UGB and the North expansion area. Table 5 identifies the MDR and Nodal MDR capacity within the existing UGB and proposed expansion areas at 90 percentof maximum allowable density. These areas can accommodate the needed 1,859 MDR dwelling units with a surplus of 111 net buildable acres available to meet P/SP needs. Table 5 - Meeting the need for 1859 MDR dwelling units NeedExisting UGB New SE Total MDR Deficit to Net buildable Surplus available capacity (90% DDC Expansion supply in be met in acres needed for public and of maximum &Area (from existing SW (Parr in SW semi-public uses capacity of NNC UGB UGB & SE Rd Nodal) expansion area in net buildable 1,734 du in zones Justification expansion expansion at assumed acres. BLI Appendix Report, p. area & new Area Nodal MDR A, Tables 11, 40)DDC & density of 18 12, 13) NNC zonesunits/net 39 acre. MDR1,859 1,123 du50 du105 du (1,859 (144 du (SW expansion dwelling needed divided by area has 119net units (du)units assumed buildable acres. Nodal 437 duminus density of 18 119 net acres MDRsupply of units/ net acre)minus 8 net acres 1,715) needed for housing units yields a surplus of 111 net acres) Total1,560 du50 du105 du1,715 du144 du8 net acres111 net (deficit)buildable acre surplus Notes: DDC andNNC zones are new mixed use zones in two commercial areas that will accommodate 50 dwelling units with no residential See land. UGB Justification Report, page41. After accommodating needed housing, Table 6 demonstrates that theUGB adopted on remand has a total of 190 net buildable acres (79 acres plus 111 acres) available to meet the need for 189 net buildable acres for Public and Semi-Public uses. 39 Rec Item 10, p. 1409 (UGB Justification Report, p. 41. 143 units ÷ 18 units/net acre = 44.4 net acrestotal rounded.) Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 17 67 Table 6 - Meeting Public and Semi-Public Needs Surplus School Park Institutional Religious Natural Government Total Remaining Residential NeedNeedNeedNeedNeed Need AcresP/SP Surplus AcresAcresAcresAcresAcres land before Areas Residential meeting P, SP (surplus)NeededLand needs Acres (79+111=190) 190108421128001891 Notes: P/SP lands to be met on surplus residential buildable acres (190) and constrained lands - page 33 Woodburn UGB Justification Report. 1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan update identified 129 constrained (unbuildable) riparian, wetland, and floodplain acres in Woodburn UGB available to meet this generalized need – Woodburn UGB Justification Report – page 33. C.Alternative Sites Analysis To summarize, Woodburn needs to accommodate the following residential and industrial needs through a UGB expansion: •Commercial. In addition to existing capacity within the UGB, Woodburn will add 23 acres for non-industrial employment land as identified in theUGB Justification Report. •Industrial. Woodburn needs additional capacity to accommodate approximately 1,752 new industrial employees. The record demonstrates that a reasonable 40 Therefore, employee per acre ratio for Woodburn is 10 employees per acre. approximately 175 net buildable acres are needed for new industrial capacity.The City's addition of 190 acres industrially designated lands accounts for the individual parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent to City limits. •Residential. Woodburn needs additional capacity to accommodate approximately 300 dwelling units. In addition to housing, Woodburn projects a need for approximately 189 net buildable acres of residential land for public and semi-public uses. As described inSection III, if some or all of the identified need cannot be accommodated inside the UGB, Woodburn must then move to the “alternatives analysis” step: “application of 40 Rec. Item 10, p. 1278, Table 1 (ECONorthwest memorandum of October 20, 2003, p. 2). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 18 68 ORS 197.298 (1) and (3)together with Goal 14, to locate and justify inclusion of land to fill that quantified need.” McMinnville, 244 Or App at 257. This starts with the identification of buildable land contiguous to the UGB. Id. at 262. Woodburn examined all the lands contiguous to and within approximately one-half mile of the existing UGB. It did so by dividing the adjacent lands into eightstudy areas, defined based on their geographical integrity and potential transportation connectivity to the existing urbanized area and 41 other existing routes. As described in the UGB Justification Report, every area was evaluated based on: size, amount of buildable land, and amount of constrained land; soil classification; relationship to surrounding agricultural areas; proximity and connections to existing or planned transportation routes and utilities and general serviceability; relationship to existing urban area; 42 and the economic, environmental, social, and energy consequences of urbanizing the land. In selecting where to expand the UGB from amongst the studied areas, Woodburn must follow the priority statute, ORS 197.298,sequentially. City ofWest Linn, 201 Or App 419, 440 (2005); D.S.Parklane Development, Inc. v Metro, 165 Or App 1, 20-21 (2000). Therefore, Woodburn must look first to any lands designated as urban reserves. Because the URA adopted with this decision is not an acknowledged urban reserve for purpose of this 43 decision, there are no urban reserves around Woodburn. The City must then look to “second priority” lands - those designated as exception areas. Woodburn identified four exception areas within the contiguous study areas it examined. Two of those areas – the Butteville Road exception area and the Southeast exception are included in the UGB in Response to Remand expansion. 41 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1413-1447(UGB Justification Report, pp. 45-79).See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 42 Id. 43 “The urban reserves designated by this decision were not adopted and in place prior to this decision, and thus are not available for analysis or selection in this UGB decision.” Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 19 69 44 The Butteville Road exception areacontains 155 gross acres, which Woodburn intends to plan for residential use and zone for low density residential. The remaining buildable lands can 45 accommodate 293 additional dwelling units. The residential portion of the Southeast exception 46 areacontains 7.5 acres of vacant residential land that will be planned residential and zoned for medium density residential, at a projected density of 14 units/net buildable acre. The Southeast exception area can thus accommodate 105 additional dwelling units. The Northeast Exception Area includes MacLaren Youth Correctional Facilitywhich is owned by the State and operated as a youth correctional facility. Given the use and ownership the 47 properties are not considered for redevelopment. Woodburn evaluated a fourth exception area, the Carl Road area, located northeast of the current UGB. However, this area has no development potential to meet the needs of the City 48 within the relevant time period. The Carl Road area “has no remaining development capacity,” 49 and does not contain land that is “usable for urban purposes.”Because this area cannot reasonably accommodate identified land needs and because it would be a significant unbuffered intrusion into surrounding agricultural land, it has been excluded from the UGB expansion. Therefore, the exception areas together can accommodate an additional 398 dwelling units. Because there is a remaining need for both residential land and industrial land after including the exception areas in the UGB, Woodburn must next look to the third category of “marginal” lands, none of which exists in Marion County. Therefore, Woodburn must turn to the “fourth priority” lands – those designated for agriculture or forestry. In selecting from among agricultural lands, higher priority for inclusion in the UGB must be given to those lands of lower productive capability as measured by soil classification. ORS 197.298 (2). As described in Section III, if the amount of land within a category exceeds the need, then the jurisdiction must use the 44 Rec Item 10, p. 1406 (UGB Justification Report, p. 38). 45 Rec Item 10, p.1188-1189 (BLI, Appendix A, Table 15). 46 Rec Item 10, p. 1408 (UGB Justification Report, p. 40). 47 Id. 48 Rec Item 10, p. 1431 (UGB Justification Report, p. 63). 49 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 20 70 boundary location factors of Goal 14, “consistent with ORS 197.298,” to choose among those “like” lands. A decision to include or exclude land from a UGB must be based on a balancing of all these factors, rather than reliance on any one factor. Parklane, 165 Or App at 25; 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Metro (Ryland Homes), 174 Or App 406, 409-10 (2001). Woodburn must accommodate approximately 144 dwelling units on residential expansion land outside the existing UGB and outside of the exception areas included in this expansion. These 144 units should be the more-affordable, higher-density types. Woodburnalso has a need for approximately 175 net buildable acresof industrial land. The City's addition of 190 acres of industrially designated lands accounts for the individual parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent to City limits. The remaining portions of the eightstudy areas are very similar in terms of their soil classifications; Class II soils predominate in all areas. Three of the areas – Study Areas 4, 5, and 50 The City therefore ranks these three areas last 6 – contain the largest amount of Class II soils. in priority amongst the farm land alternative areas, due to the following factors: • As described in the Goal 9 Findings in section V.A., agriculture is the number one industry in Marion County; it is the largest employment sector in Woodburn; and the employment growth rate for agriculture related businesses in Woodburn far exceeds the state employment growth rate. High quality farm land is essential to the health of this industry, and the City chooses to protect it, like any other valuable industrial land. • These three Study Areas –4, 5, and 6 –are more distant from some of the City’s primary transportation corridors that serve urban industrial uses (I-5, the Highway 214 interchange; planned roadway extensions at Stacy Allison Drive and Evergreen 50 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15).See map at Attachment2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 21 71 Road). They are proximate to the Highway 99E corridor, which runs through the eastern portion of the City and serves major parts of Marion County farm land. • There are suitable, buildable lands in the remaining studyareas with larger amounts of lesser quality soils. Study Areas 1, 3, and 6 contain exception areas that the City has already evaluated and determined to include (Butteville Road area in Study Area 1 and Southeast area in Study Area 6) or exclude (Carl Road area and MacLaren area in Study Area 3). As described in the UGB Justification Report and supporting documents, Woodburn evaluated the remaining exception areas under the Goal 14 Locational factors: (1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs; (2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; (3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and (4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB. Following is a brief summary of the performance of each of the remaining Study Areas -1, 2, 7, and 8 - under the Goal 14 factors, based on the UGB Justification Report and supporting 51 documents incorporated into it. Study Area 1 • The area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing urbanized portions of Woodburn. 52 • The area falls within the middle range of cost on serviceability. 51 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1422-1426 (UGB Justification Report pp. 54-58). 52 Id., p. 55, 58; Rec. Item 10 at 1423,1426. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 22 72 53 • The northern portion of Study Area 1contains Class I agricultural soils.Intensive crops producing high value products are grown in this area, including hops and 54 berries. Urbanizing this land would have an adverse impact on the agricultural economy of the state and county. • Due to a lack of human or natural boundaries, urbanization of the northern portion of Study Area 1 would be an urban encroachment, with no logical boundary, into a highly productive and intact farming area. This could cause conflicts between common farming practices in the area (pesticide spray, aerial spraying, and 24-hour machinery operations) and the movement of farm equipment, and urban uses such as housing or industrial. Woodburn included the exception area portion of Study Area 1 in the UGB, but has determined that based on balancing the Goal 14 factors, the remaining portion of Study Area 1 should be excluded. Recognizing the importance of the agricultural industry to the city, county, 55 and state,the City desires to protect large intact farming areas from encroachment by urbanization, and looks to reinforce natural and manmade buffers to do so. The Butteville Road exception area in the southern portion of Study Area 1 is separated from surrounding agricultural 56 uses by the Oregon Electric Railway and Highway 214.Further, the agricultural portion of Study Area 1 is bisected north to south by a riparian corridor, further limiting the urbanization potential 57 of the remaining lands.On balance, the agricultural portion of Study Area 1 ranks low for potential inclusion in the UGB. Study Area 2 • Can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing urbanized portions of Woodburn. 53 See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 54 Rec. Item 10, p. 1429 (UGB Justification Report p. 61). 55 See Section V, A, “Findings on Economic Importance of the Agricultural Industry to Woodburn and to Marion County.” 56 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1428-1429 (UGB Justification Report pp. 60-61). 57 Id., p. 61; Rec. Item 10, p. 1429. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 23 73 58 • Ranks high on serviceability for sewer, water, and stormwater. 59 • The southwestern portion of Study Area 2 includes about 79 gross acres,lying both west and east of Boones Ferry Road. It can be distinguished from the rest of 60 the study area because it does not contain any Class I soils.It is partially developed with the OGC (Tukwila) Golf Course and is further defined in part by a stream corridor that separates it from the highly productive farm land to the north, northwest, and northeast. The southern portion’s proximity to, and partial development with, the OGC Golf Course makes it a logical site for residential development, including parks and other public and semi-public uses. • The northern portion of Study Area 2 contains Class I soils and is an integral part 61 of the farming areas and agricultural industry to the north of Woodburn. Urbanization of the northern portions of this study area could cause severe conflicts with farming and would cause a significant loss of excellent farm land to urbanization. 62 The southern portion of Study Area 2, in the vicinity of the existing golf courseand proposed for inclusion in this UGB expansion for residential use, contains approximately 37 net 63 buildable acres.Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarizedhere, the southern portion of Study Area 2 is suitable for a UGB expansion for residential use. Study Area 3 64 • Ranks low on both serviceability and suitability for industrial use. • There is no development or service capacity in the existing Carl Road exception area, located within Study Area 3. 58 Id., p. 55, 58; Rec. Item 10 at 1423, 1426. 59 Rec Item 10, p.1187-1188 (BLI, Appendix A, Table 14). 60 See map at Attachment2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 61 Id. 62 Id. 63 Rec Item 10, pp. 1187-1188 (BLI, Appendix A, Table 14). 64 Rec. Item, 10 pp. 1423-1425 (UGB Justification Report pp. 55-57). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 24 74 • The study area includes a youth correctional facility, making urban residential use 65 unsuitable. • The area has poor access to the City’s transportation network and is not easily integrated into the existing urban area because of its distant location across Highway 99E, a major state highway that physically separates it from the rest of the City. 66 • Thearea has substantial riparian areas that make development challenging. Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, Study Area 3 is not as suitable for urban uses as other alternative sites within the same ORS 197.298(1) priority. Study Area 7 • The study area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing urbanized portions of Woodburn. 67 • The study area falls within the middle range of cost on serviceability. • The area is served by Parr Road and by planned extensions of Stacey Allison Drive and Evergreen Road. This planned road network and the extension of other urban services will facilitate the future long-range provision of urban services to the urban reserve area immediately to the south in a cost-effective manner. • This road network provides excellent access to I-5, to Highway 99, and to the internal portions of the City, making the site readily integrated into the existing urbanized area. In particular, the northern portion of this site is well-located relative to the transportation network for industrial use. • The Parr Road Nodal Development area, located on the eastern portion of this site, is particularly well-suited for residential use, because it can be integrated into both the existing neighborhood that is inside the UGB and the planned nodal 65 Id., pp. 64-65; Rec. Item 10, pp. 1432-1433. 66 Id., p. 65; Rec. Item 10, p. 1433. 67 Id., pp. 55, 58; Rec. Item 10 at 1423, 1426. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 25 75 development area within the existing UGB. The residentially designated area surround two recently constructed schools. TheCity’s Nodal Development plan requires that the area be developed with safe routes to schools and a sidewalk and bicycle network to ensure safe access to neighborhood stores and services. Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarizedhere, the northern portion of Study Area 7 is suitable for a UGB expansion for industrial use, and the Parr Road Nodal Development Area in the eastern portion of Study Area 7 is suitable for residential use. The northern portion provides 68 65 net buildable acres for industrial use. The Parr Road Nodal Development Area contains sufficient land in the appropriate location to meet the land need for the 144 MDR units, plus approximately 111 net buildable acres for public and semi-public land needs. Study Area 8 69 Study Area 8 is comprised of approximately 755 gross acres. Butteville Road runs north- south through the study area and divides it into two distinct blocks. 130 gross acreslie east of 7071 Butteville Road. These 130 gross acres include 110 net buildable acres in threetax lots.This eastern portion is adjacent to the existing urban growth boundary and City limits and does not 72 contain any Class I soils. In contrast, the larger, more distant area west of Butteville Road 73 contains a significant block of Class I soils. Land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which 74 is in Study Area 8 and some of which is to the west of it, consists primarily of Class I and IIsoils. The soils are capable of growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, hops, orchards, 75 hay, vegetables, grass seed, and more. This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of an agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west. 68 Rec. Item 10, p. 1450(UGB Justification Report, p. 82). 69 Rec Item 10, p. 1414 (UGB Justification Report, p. 46). 70 Rec. Item 10, p. 1416(UGB Justification Report, p. 48). 71 Rec. Item 10, p. 1450(UGB Justification Report, p. 82). 72 Rec Item 10, p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report, p. 50). See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 73 Rec Item 10, p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report, p. 50). 74 Rec Item 11, p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils- Non-Irrigated; Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map, Eight Study Areas – Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. Seemap at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 75 Rec Item 10, pp.1442-1444 (UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 26 76 • The study area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing urbanized portions of Woodburn. • The area ranks highest among the study areas on serviceability. • ButtevilleRoad serves as a significant manmade buffer between the land to the east and the large expanse of farm land to the west. Therefore, potential conflicts between urban uses to the east of Butteville Road and farm practices to the west of the road can be minimized. • The 130 acres east of Butteville Road are separated from the large farming areas to the west, south, and north by the manmade buffers of Butteville Road, the I-5 freeway, Highway 214, and the Butteville Road exception area. This allows the 130acre area to be developed as a unified industrial site, for one or a few industrial users. It also allows the site to be protected from conflicting uses on and near the site. • The 130 acres east of Butteville Road are connected to the urbanized portion of Woodburn via existing access to the Highway 214 interchange, which will provide excellent freeway access to freight trucks. Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, the eastern portion of Study Area 8, to the east of Butteville Road, is suitable for a UGB expansion for industrial use. This is conditioned coupled with measures to: • Provide a legal boundary at Butteville Road, beyond which the UGB will not be expanded for at least 20 years. SeeAttachment 4. • Plan and zone the site for industrial use only, the City has accomplished this through the SWIR overlay zone which establishes minimum lot sizes throughout the industrial area and limits the types of uses. The industrial land proposed to be brought into the UGB in this decision, which totals approximately 190 acres in Study Areas 7 and 8, meets the identified industrial land need. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 27 77 V.URBAN RESERVE AREA Pursuant to ORS 195.145(a) and OAR chapter 660, division 21, and in coordination with Marion County, Woodburn designates approximately 230 acres to the southwest of the UGBfor a This will be the first area to which the City expands its UGB in the future, if a need for a URA. 76 UGB expansion is demonstrated. The City intends to establish this URAto meet the demand for land beyond thattime period of the UGBwhich is from 2000-2020. The City willadopt findings specifying the particular number of years over which the designated URA isintended to provide a supply of land. Division 21authorizes cities toidentify an amount of land estimated to be at least a 10-year supply and no more than a 30-year supply of developable land beyond the 20-year time frame used to establish The City is establishing a URA out to year 2031, carrying forward some assumptions the UGB. 77 of the current UGB and modifying others to reflect likely future development trends. Future residential densities of population growthcan be estimated by application of a simple method. In Table 7, assumptions regarding the single- and multi-family residential mix, dwelling unit density, and persons per household are presumed to carry forward from the established UGB into the planning period for the URA. Using a straightforward method, an estimate of the persons per net acre of residential land is made. That net acre estimate is converted to gross acres applying a weighted average of 60percentsingle-family residential and 40percent multi-family residential. Since the net to gross conversion factors used to establish the existing UGB primarily address needed roadways (public lands are addressed separately) for the URA planning period, the 25percentsafe harbor net to gross conversion factor is used instead. This provides a means to estimate land need (both roadway and public lands) associated with residential land. The table concludes that, during the URAplanning period, residential densities will be approximately 20.1 persons per gross acre. 76 See Attachment3: Urban Reserve Map. 77 OAR 660-021-0030. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 28 78 Table 7 – Future Residential Density Average Percent New Residents Homes in Persons per per Gross Single/Multi Dwelling Persons/ Net AcreNet to Gross Persons Acre Family Units/Net Household(5.5 * 3.1 Conversion per Gross AnalysisDesignations 78 Acre 7980 and 12 * 3.1)Factor 81 Acre Single Family Residential60%5.53.117.125%13.6 Multi- Family Residential40%12.03.137.225%29.8 Weighted Averages SFR/MFR25.125%20.1 Next, the City must estimate its population growth during the URAperiod. Applying the adopted growth rate (2.80percentaagr) for the 2020 UGB population (34,919) yields a population of over 46,000 by the year 2030, the earliest possible year for the URA planning period. Because this number is so large in relation tothe 2020 City population, it would not be reasonable to plan for it in the existing process. Therefore, the City Council looks to and takes official notice of the 82 The coordinated population number already prepared by Marion County for 2030: 37,216. average annual growth rate associated with that forecast is 2.04percent. This yields a more reasonable population estimate that can be planned for in this current process. Table 8 shows the population between 2030 and 2035 applying the coordinated average annual growth rate for each year’s growth. The persons per gross acre calculated from Table 7 is applied to the population increase during the URAplanning period to determine an estimate of the gross acres of residential land needed in each year 2030-2035. 78 Rec Item 10, p. 1410 (UGB Justification Report, p. 42). 79 Id., p. 43. 80 2000 Census. 81 Safe harbor assumption of 25 percent. 82 Marion County Coordinated 2030 Population Forecast. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 29 79 Table 8 - Residential Land Need Population (Grows People Added at 2.04%average Since 2020 annual growth Population of Persons per Gross Residential Gross Yearrate)83 34,919 84 Acre 85 Acres Needed 203037,216229720.1114 203137,975305620.1152 203238,750383120.1191 203339,540462120.1230 203440,347542820.1270 203541,170625120.1311 Next, the City must determine the amount of needed employment land during the URA planning period. The City will estimate the employees per gross acre in a simple method similar to the residential land need. In Table 9, an analysis is made of the number of employees assumed at the end of the UGB planning period and the number of acres existing or added to accommodate that need. It is assumed that moving forward into the URA planningperiod, the same mix of commercial and industrial jobs will remain and the same net to gross conversion factors will apply. In Table 9, the analysis uses a weighted average of the mix between commercial and industrial jobs, estimating that employment land will contain, on average 17.4 employees per gross acre. Table 9 - Future Employment Densities Average Percent Employees Jobs Employees Net Acres Net Net to per Gross Commercial Added Available Acres Total Gross Employees Employees Acre and 2000-Existing Added Net Conversion per Gross AnalysisIndustrial2020 86 UGBto UGBAcresNet AcreFactors 87 Acre 8889 Commercial68%56641082313143.210%39.3 9091 Industrial32%27101261753019.015%7.8 Totals100%837423419843219.412%17.4 83 Id. 84 Rec Item 10, p. 1387 (UGB Justification Report, p. 19). 85 From Table 7(in this report). 86 Rec Item 3 p. 167-185 (ECONorthwest memorandum, April 29, 2002, p. 18 (public and office employees included with commercial for this analysis). 87 BLI p. 6. 88 Rec. Item 10, p. 1390 (UGB Justification Report, p. 22-23). 89 Id. 90 Rec. Item 10,p. 1390 (UGB Justification Report, p. 22). 91 Rec. Item 10, p. 1388 (UGB Justification Report, p. 20). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 30 80 To determine the number of employment acres needed, the residential population estimate is carried over from Table 8 and the population to jobs ratio determinedin the UGB Justification Report is assumed to continue during the URA planningperiod. The number of employees added since 2020, the end of the UGB planning period, is calculated and, using the estimate of the number of employees per gross acres determined in Table 9, a demand for employment land is identified for during the URA period. Table 10 - Employment Land Need Employees Population Added since Employees Employment to Jobs 2020 Jobs per Gross Gross Acres 929394 YearPopulationRatioEmployees18,762AcreNeeded 203037,2161.919,58782517.447 203137,9751.919,987122517.470 203238,7501.920,395163317.494 203339,5401.920,811204917.4118 2034 40,3471.9 21,235 247317.4 142 2035 41,1701.9 21,668 290617.4 167 Because URAs,outside of the Portland Metropolitan planning area, are not permitted to identify land separately for a particular type of land (e.g.,residential, employment or public), the land needs for residential and employment land, calculated separately in the tables above, are combined into one single land need in Table 11. Public land needs, including roadways, are included within each category of residential and employment land through the use of the net to gross conversion factors in Tables 7 and 9. Consistent with the “Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement” dated May 2015, the City is establishing a 230-acre URA. According to Table 11, this will provide an 11-year land supply. 92 Id., p. 20. 93 Id., pp. 21-22. 94 From Table 9(in this report). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 31 81 Table 11 - Urban Reserve Land Need Residential Employment Gross Acres Gross Acres Total Gross YearNeededNeededAcres Needed 203011447162 203115270222 Urban Reserve Alternative Site Analysis Woodburn is surrounded by high value farm lands and the City carefully considered how best to expand its future City limits, while minimizing impacts to these valuable lands. Woodburn evaluated potential expansion in light of ORS 197.298 (2) to determine which areas contain lower- 95 The URAdesignation minimized the impacts of growth on the quality soils than others. surrounding agricultural lands. The portion of Study Area 7, immediately south and adjacent to the adopted UGB, totals 9697 230 gross acres or 206net acres,and is predominantly Class III soils.Parcels are large, ranging from 10 –55 acres in size. Development in the lesser soil class in Study Area 7 requires inclusion 98 of some Class II soils to maximize efficiency of areas with the lesser soil quality.Other areas considered for urban reserve are predominantly Class II soils. Evaluating alternative areas for possible designation as Urban Reserve Area (URA) found that all areas are relatively flat and have well-drained soils that can accommodate urban 99 development. The portion of Study Area 7 designated as urban reserve is serviceable at 100 reasonable costs.It has good access to transportation facilities and will help solve long-term 95 Rec. Item 10, p. 1416-1417 (UGB Justification Report p. 49-50). 96 Rec. Item 10, p.1190-1192 (Appendix A of the Building Lands Inventory, Tables 17 and 21).The identified parcels of land contain 206 net acres. Using the conversion factor from Table 9 of 12 percent, 206 net acres is the equivalent of 230 gross acres. This is approximately 3.6 percent more land than the 222 acres identified as needed for the urban reserve in 2031. 97 See map at Attachment2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 98 Rec. Item 10, p. 1416-1417 (UGB Justification Report p. 48-49). 99 Rec. Item 10, p. 1422 (UGB Justification Report p. 54). 100 Rec. Item 10, p. 1423 (UGB Justification Report p. 55). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 32 82 101 transportation needs.From a social and economic prospective, designation of this land as Urban 102 Reserve minimizes the impact to adjacent farm lands. The urban reserve is bisected by a planned southern arterial that will link to Butteville Road 103 can be efficiently served by public services.Urban uses can be made compatible and are and 104 less sensitive to nearby agricultural practicesthrough development standards. VI.UGB EXPANSIONLIMITS 105 agriculture is the number As described in this decision’s findings for Goal 3and Goal 9, one industry in Marion County, and is among the top industries in Woodburn. Moreover, it is growing in value and both the City and County desire to ensurethat the land base and infrastructure on which the agricultural industry depends is protected to support that growth. The City and County further recognize that urbanization near farmland has an adverse “spillover” impact on surrounding farms and agricultural activities. These conflicts include urban traffic congestion in farming areas; vandalism, theft, and trespassing; complaints about common farm practices, such as night-time harvesting; and unwarranted increases in the price of farmland 106 due to land speculation where the integrity of the UGB is in question. Without adequate buffers, measures to reduce conflicts, and long-term certainty for those farming near the UGB, the agricultural industry in the region and in the state will be significantly 107 adversely impacted beyond simply the land that is converted from farm to urban uses.As farm land is converted to non-farm uses or compromised because of conflicts, the region will lose its ancillary industries, which employ many –including processors, farm equipment dealers, 101 Rec. Item 10, p. 1425 (UGB Justification Report p. 57). 102 Rec. Item 10, p. 1428(UGBJustification Report p. 60). 103 Rec. Item 10, p. 1438 (UGB Justification Report p. 70). 104 Rec. Item 10, p. 1447 (UGB Justification Report p. 79). 105 Data from Oregon Departmentof Agriculture, included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug. 23, 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 101. 106 Rec. Item 6, p. 170. 107 Rec. Vol. 5, p. 843: Oregon Department of Agriculture letter to Woodburn, March 19, 2004. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 33 83 professional service providers, and the like. This will cause a particularly adverse economic 108 downturn in the local Woodburn economy. In addition, the City wishes to conserve its financial resources by focusing infrastructure investment inside the existing UGB and through limited expansion of the UGB, if necessary. In particular, the areas to the north and northeast of the current City UGB and to the west of Butteville Road NE consist of the highest quality soils and are part of larger and very productive 109 agricultural regions. The area north of the current UGB, known as Study Area 2, consists primarily of Class I 110 and IIsoils, the most productive and highest capability soils that exist. Current agricultural uses 111 include filberts (a high value crop), grass seed, orchards, and grain. The soils are also suitable 112 for hops, vegetables, berries, and other crops. The farming units are large, and are part of a 113 larger agricultural area of excellent soils sweeping to the north and northeast. Similarly, the land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which is in Study Area 8 and 114 some of which is to the west of it, consists primarily of Class I and IIsoils.Ninety-nine percent 115 of the agricultural land in Study Area 8 is High-Value farmland.The soils are capable of growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, hops, orchards, hay, vegetables, grass 116 seed, and more. This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of an agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west. 108 Rec. Item 6, p. 170: Carl family/Pudding River Ranch letter to Woodburn, August 23, 2006. 109 Rec. Vol. 5, p. 843: Oregon Department of Agriculture letter to Woodburn, March 19, 2004. 110 Rec Item 11 p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils- Non-Irrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map, Eight Study Areas – Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 111 Rec. Item 10, p. 1430(UGB Justification Report, pp. 61-62). 112 Rec. Item 10, p. 1441 - 1446 (Id., pp. 73-76 and Table 18). 113 Rec Item 11, p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils- Non-Irrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map, Eight Study Areas – Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Areaand Soils Capability Class Map. 114 Id. 115 Rec. Item 10, p. 1255(Technical Report 3, “Potential UGB ExpansionArea Analysis, November 2002. p. 9 Table 4b). 116 Rec. Item 10, p. 1442 - 1446(UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 34 84 The land northeast of the City and to the east of 99E is in Study Area 3. The agricultural 117 soils in Study Area 3 are primarily Class II (prime).Most of the agricultural land in Study Area 118119 3 is high-value farmland.These soils are suitable for the wide range of crops described above. The MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility and a smallfully developed manufactured home park, are also within Study Area 3. “The Northeast Rural Residential (Carl Road) area has 120 no remaining development capacity,”and this exception area does not contain land that is usable for urban purposes. Its inclusion within the UGB “would also be a significant unbuffered intrusion 121 There is no urban land or infrastructure planning need to into surrounding agricultural land.” bring these two areas into the UGB. Butteville Road NE on the west, and Highway 99E and the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility in the northeast, provide substantial manmade structures that, with management, can provide fairly effective buffers between urban uses and agricultural uses, and can help to minimize conflicts between the two. The City has no intention or need to urbanize beyond these two roadways. Therefore, the City and County will adoptmeasures to minimize the impacts of urbanization at the “edge,” to reduce farm and non-farm conflicts, and to not encourage economic speculation on farm land. These measures are consistent with and serve to fulfill the City’s and County’s existing obligations under theCoordination Agreementand the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. 1. The City of Woodburn and Marion County will adopt the following language into the Coordination Agreement: 117 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15) and Rec. Item 10 p. 1442 (UGB Justification Report, p. 74, Table 18). 118 Rec. Item 10, p. 1442 - 1446UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). 119 Id. 120 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report, p. 40). 121 Rec. Item 10, p. 1441 - 1447(UGB Justification Report, pp. 73-79). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 35 85 122 “For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and acknowledged,neither the City nor County will seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban growth boundary in the following areas: • West of the portion of Butteville Road NE depicted in Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map. • Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as depicted in Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map. 2. The City of Woodburn, as part of its urban growth boundary decision, will adoptthe following language into its Comprehensive Plan policies addressing Goals 9 and 14: “For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and acknowledged,123the City shall not seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban growth boundary in the following areas: • West of the portion of Butteville Road NE depicted onAttachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map. • Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as depicted on Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map. 3. The City of Woodburn, as part of its UGBdecision, will adoptthe following language into its Comprehensive Plan policies addressing Goals 9, 12, and 14. Both the City and Marion County will adopt the following language into the Coordination Agreement: “Woodburn intends the UGB expansion area known as the Southwest Industrial Reserve, comprising approximately 190acres,located east of Butteville Road and north of Parr Road, to be used for larger industrial users. Specific lot size standards shall be 122 This UGB decision is not final and acknowledged until all appeals and appeal time periods have been exhausted or passed. 123 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 36 86 established limiting the size and number of future lots for these properties. Woodburn recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both agricultural practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as part of their 124 regular business practice.Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the west of Butteville Road NE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the region’s 125 Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural agricultural industry. uses and to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest Industrial Reserve and other urban uses, the City and County will: • Ensure that the design of and any improvements to the portion of Butteville Road NE serving the Southwest Industrial Reservenot encourage any urban traffic unrelated to the industrial use in the immediate areaand unrelated to agricultural uses west of Butteville Road. • As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial Reserve consideration shall be given to methods to mitigate impacts from development and adjacent agricultural activities this can include buffers or increased setbacks along Butteville Road, provide that any buffers needed to reduce conflicts between the industrial uses and agricultural activity west of Butteville Road NE are located inside the UGB. 4. The City of Woodburn, aspart of its UGB decision, further recognizes that Highway 99E and the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility provide a substantial buffer between urban uses and agricultural lands to the northeast. Both the City and Marion County will adopt the following language into the Coordination Agreement: “Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the east of Highway 99E and northeast of the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the 126 agricultural industry.” 124 Rec. Item 10, p. 1445 (UGB Justification Report, p. 77). 125 SeeVII, P Other Goal and Statutory Findings herein. 126 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 37 87 VII.OTHER GOAL AND STATUTORY FINDINGS A.Applicable Goals After consideration of the existing record on remand, the City Council finds that the Statewide Planning Goals applicable to this land use decision are as follows: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal 3: Agricultural Lands Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 8: Recreational Needs Goal 9: Economic Development Goal 10: Housing Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Goal 12: Transportation Goal 13: Energy Conservation Goal 14: Urbanization B.Applicable Law 127 The City adopted its UGB amendment, on November 2, 2005and the substantive law that applied on that date remains applicable to this remand proceeding. LCDC’s current rule implementing Goal 9 was adopted on December 1, 2005 and consequently does not apply. The prior division 9 rules, OAR chapter 660, division 9 (2005), are applicable. 127 Rec. Item 10, p. 1372 (UGB Justification Report, October 2005, p. 4). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 38 88 The amendments to Goal 14 ("the new Goal 14”) were adopted on April 28, 2005, with a delayed effective date unless a local government elected to apply the new goal. The City elected to apply the new Goal 14 when it adopted itsUGB amendment and the "new" Goal 14 is applicable. However, OAR chapter 660, division 24 (“the Goal 14 rule”) was adopted on October 19, 2006, but did not become effective until April 2007. Since the City adopted its UGB amendment on November 2, 2005, almost a year before the date that OAR chapter 660, division 24 was filed, division 24 rules are not applicable. C.Goal 1: Citizen Involvement - OAR 660-015-0000(1) The intent of Goal 1 is to ensure that citizens have meaningful opportunities to participate in land use planning decisions. As stated in the Goal, the purpose is to develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has an acknowledged citizen involvementprogram and the City Council finds that nothing in this land use decision amends or affects that program, and no provisions adopted herein are inconsistent with that program. Goal 1 has five stated objectives that are relevant to the UGB boundary amendment: Citizen Involvement -- To provide for widespread citizen involvement. Communication --To assure effective two-way communication with citizens. Citizen Influence --To provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Technical Information --To assure that technical information is available in an understandable form. Feedback Mechanisms --To assure that citizens will receive a response from policy-makers. In relation to Goal 1: Citizen Involvement, the City Council finds, based on the existing record, that the City utilized its acknowledged citizen involvement program to engage in an Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 39 89 128 extensive public outreach efforts regarding the proposed UGB expansion.The UGB expansion project included numerous public hearings, community meetings and ongoing coordination. More specifically, Woodburn's Periodic Review Program was approved in 1999. After this approval, there were a series of technical advisory committeemeetings, a joint Planning Commission / City Council work session, a series of public open houses, four Planning Commission work sessions, and formal public hearings before the Marion County Board of Commissioners, the Woodburn 129 Planning Commission and the City Council. In the several years required to create the existing record, the City Council finds that the City of Woodburn complied with Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. Notice was mailed to all property owners within the City, the unincorporated area within the existing UGB, and the UGB study areas. Numerous workshops were held within the community to present proposals, answer questions and receive comments. In addition to open houses hosted by staff, formal public hearings were held 130 All documents relied upon and the before the PlanningCommission and the City Council. proposed amendments were available on the City’s website, Woodburn City Hall, and the Woodburn City Library. All of the public input received in the hearing processes was considered andretained. In fact, the existing record shows that during the extensive public engagement process some modifications were made to the UGB expansion proposal based on comments 131 received during the City Council’s public hearing and deliberation process. The City Council finds that, as a direct result of extensive citizen involvement, seven inter- related Community Planning Objectives were developed. The UGB expansion proposal was designed so that each of these objectives could be achieved. The Community Planning Objectives are as follows: 1. Implement the Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and Economic Development Strategy (EDS) by encouraging higher wage jobs in the community. 2. Improve transportation connections and preserve the capacity of the I-5 Interchange. 128 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 25 - 26. 129 Rec. Item 10, p. 1377 (UGB Justification Report, October 2005, p. 9). 130 Citizen Involvement Report, City of Woodburn 2005 p. 1 - 4. 131 Rec. Item 10, p. 1372 (UGB Justification Report, October 2005, p. 4). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 40 90 3. Provide buildable land for housing, parks and schools while increasing land use efficiency, connectivity and livability through good urban design. 4. Protect Woodburn’s stream corridors, floodplains and wetlands from urban encroachment. 5. Preserve farmland and minimize impacts on agricultural land. 6. Coordinate with Marion County by using the coordinated population projection that Marion County allocated to Woodburn. 132 7. Complete the City’s Periodic Review process. The Woodburn City Council and Marion County Board of Commissioners conducted a public hearing on December 14, 2015 and provided an additional opportunity for public input on the proposed UGB and URA based on evidence contained in the existing record. The City Council concludes that Goal 1: Citizen Involvement is applicable to its decision and was complied with. D.Goal 2: Land Use Planning - OAR 660-015-0000(2) Goal 2 requires all incorporated cities to establish and maintain comprehensive land use plans and implementing ordinances. It also requires cities to coordinate with other affected government entities in legislative land use processes. The purpose of Goal 2 is to establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an "adequate factual basis" for such decisions and actions. Goal 2 also requires the City to communicate and coordinate with all affected cities, counties, special districts, state, and federal agencies. The City must accommodate the needs of those entities “as much as possible.” In approving the UGB expansion and URA, the City Council relies on the following land use 133 studies, incorporated into the existing record,that have been prepared by the City or by firms contracted by the City: 132 Rec. Item 10, p. 1377 (UGB Justification Report, October 2005, p. 9). 133 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp.26- 28. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 41 91 Woodburn Local Wetlands Inventory List (Shapiro, 2000) Local Wetlands Inventory and Riparian Assessment (Shapiro, January 5, 2000) Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (ECO Northwest, May 2001) Woodburn Economic Development Strategy (ECONorthwest, June 2001) Woodburn Population and Employment Projections 2000-2002 (ECONorthwest, April 29, 2002) Technical Report 3 Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis Natural Resource Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, November 2002) Woodburn Occupation / Wage Forecast (ECONorthwest, March 20, 2003) Site Requirements for Woodburn Target Industries (ECONorthwest, October 20, 2003) Evaluation of 2004 OEA Population Forecast (ECONorthwest, 2004) Marion County Comprehensive Plan Amendments Memo (Winterbrook, 2004) Marion County Board Minutes (November 10, 2004) Marion County Ordinance 1201 and Findings Approving Population Projection (November 24, 2004) Citizen Involvement Report (City of Woodburn, 2005) Findings of Fact (City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 2005) Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, Update, Explanation of Proposed Plan and Zoning Map Changes (Woodburn Community Development Department, 2005) Technical Report 2 Woodburn Residential Land Need Analysis (Winterbrook Planning, May 2005) Technical Report 1 Buildable Lands Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, July 2005) City of Woodburn Public Facilities Plan (October 2005) Woodburn Comprehensive Plan (October, 2005) Woodburn Transportation System Plan (CH2M Hill, October 2005) Woodburn UGB Justification Report (Winterbrook Planning, October 2005) Woodburn City Council Agenda Packet (October 31, 2005) Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010 – 2030 (September 2008) Marion County Ordinance 1291 (October 7, 2009) Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 42 92 The City Council finds that the above referenced documents provide the foundation for the proposed UGB expansion and URA. More specifically, the City prepared, and relies on, technical analyses for expanding the urban growth boundary area in accordance with applicable state laws. The City adopted a coordinated population forecast, a Residential Land Needs Analysis, and an Economic Opportunities Analysis in support of the UGB expansion and URA proposal. The City Council further finds, based on the existing record, that the specified studies that the City has undertaken and information received through the public hearing process has provided the Council with an adequate factual basis for the UGB expansion and URA. Finally, Goal 2 requires that the City communicate and coordinate with all affected cities, counties, special districts, and state and federal agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing announcing the February 3, 2005, Planning Commission and March 28, 2005, City Council public hearings, explaining the nature of the proposed amendments and soliciting comments, was mailed to the following potentially affected units of government and agencies on January 14, 2005: Marion County Department of Land Conservation and Development Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Water Resources Department Division of State Lands Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon State Health Division Woodburn School District Woodburn Fire District Marion County Planning Department City of Hubbard City of Gervais Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 43 93 Specifically, in regard to coordination with Marion County, the City has followed the Coordination Agreementwhich provides guidance regarding the applicable UGB amendment process. As coordination with affected cities, Woodburn provided notice and an opportunity to comment to the cities of Hubbard and Gervais, the Woodburn Fire District, the Woodburn School District and all affected state and federal agencies. Notice of Public Hearing announcing the joint City Council/Marion County Board of Commissioners public hearing was mailed to DLCD 35 days in advance of the December 14, 2015 hearingdate. Notices were sent to all of the other agencies noted above 20 days in advance of the joint hearing. The City Council concludes that Goal 2: Land Use Planning is applicable to its decision and was complied with. E.Goal 3: Agriculture Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(3) Woodburn is surrounded by lands designated for agricultural use. Compliance with Goal 3 in the context of a UGB amendment relies onsatisfaction of Goal 14 requirements and ORS 197.298. Because the Legislative Findings on Remand demonstrate that the proposed UGB expansion complies with Goal 14, the City Council concludes that is has also complied with Goal 3: Agriculture - OAR 660-015-0000(3). This decision further complies with Goal 3 by providing for long-term protection of the farm land around and outside of the proposed urban growth boundary by adopting an ‘urban expansion limit’ in two locations. For 20 years from the date thisUGB decision is final and acknowledged, neither the City nor the County shall seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban growth boundary beyond the urban expansion limits described in the Findings to this UGB decision. These limits areenforced through this decision and through inter- governmental agreements adopted by the City of Woodburn and Marion County, as further described in the Findings and in those agreements. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 44 94 F.Goal 4: Forest Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(4) Because no land surrounding the City is designated for forestry use, Goal 4 does not apply. G.Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces - OAR 660- 015-0000(5) Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR chapter 660, division 23, address protection of significant natural, scenic and historic resources and open space. Rules in OAR 660, division 23, specify which resource categories must be protected by comprehensive plans and which are subject to local discretion and circumstances; the rules provide guidance on how to complete inventories and protection programs, and when the rule requirements apply. OAR 660, division 23, requires cities to inventory significant riparian areas, wetlands and wildlife habitat. Goal 5 requires cities to inventory specified resources and to adopt programs to “protect natural resources” and “conserve scenic, historic and open space resources.” The City Council finds that some of the resources that the goal requires to be inventoried do not exist in Woodburn (specifically: federal wild and scenic rivers; state scenic waterways; approved Oregon recreation trails; natural areas listed on the register of natural resources; and federally designated wildlife areas). The Goal 5 resources that may apply to Woodburn are limited to the following: a.Riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fish habitat; b.Wetlands; c.Wildlife habitat; d.Groundwater resources; e.Mineral and aggregate resources; f.Energy sources; g.Cultural areas. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 45 95 OAR 660-023-0030 through 660-023-0050 contain the requirements for all resources. For each resource category, the rule contains standard requirements and, in some instances, an alternative “safe harbor” standard for satisfying Goal 5. There are safe harbor alternatives for riparian corridors and wetlands. OAR 660-023-090 and 660-023-100. Woodburn followed the safe harbor provisions and included the safe harbor requirements in the new Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District (RCWOD) amended zoning district. Riparian Corridors and Wetlands (OAR 660-023-0090 and 660-023-0100) Safe harbor provisions allow the City to determine significant riparian corridors by using a standard setback distance from all fish-bearing streams, based on ODFWmaps indicating fish habitat. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has designated Mill Creek and Senecal Creek as fish bearing streams. For streams with an average annual stream flow less than 1,000 cubic feet, the riparian corridor standard setback a distance of 50 feet upland from the top of each bank defined as the 2-year flood elevation. Where a riparian corridor includes all or part of a significant wetland, the riparian corridor extends upland 50 feet from the upland edge of the wetland. Woodburn has adopted plan policies and implementing regulations that satisfy the riparian corridor safe harbor provisions. Wildlife Habitat for Special Status Species (OAR 660-023-0110(4)) OAR 660, division 23 contains safe harbor provisions for wildlife habitat areas at that narrow potentially significant habitats to only the following: 1. Habitat used by a species designated as threatened, endangered or sensitive; 2. Nesting, roosting or watering habitat of osprey or great blue heron; 3. A habitat included in a ODFW adopted management plan; 4. A habitat mapped by ODFW for a species or habitat of concern. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 46 96 The City Council finds that there are no wildlife habitat resources in the UGB expansion area that the City is required to protect other than meeting the minimum protection requirements of the 50feet riparian corridor and the wetlands protection requirements. Groundwater Resources (OAR 660-023-0140) At the time of periodic review, the City is required to inventory and protect significant groundwater resources. Significant groundwater resources are limited to: (1) critical groundwater areas and groundwater limited areas designated by Oregon Water Resources Commission and (2) wellhead protection areas if the City chooses to designate such areas. The Oregon Department of Human Services and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality have developed a Source Water Protection Plan for the City. The plan inventories potential sources of contamination, establishes best management practices for industries within the influence zone of the City's wells, allows the City to develop ordinances to provide protection of the aquifer, and maps the flow patterns of the aquifers. The City Council finds that the Troutdale aquifer, from which the City obtains its water is not a critical or restrictively classified groundwater area. Mineral and Aggregate Resources (OAR 660-023-0180) OAR 660-023-0180 addresses identification of significant aggregate resources, approval of mining activity, and protection of the resource from conflicting uses. The rule sets criteria for significance and prescribes a process for evaluating potential impacts from the proposed mining activity. The City Council takes official notice of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and notes that its inventory doesnot contain any mineral or aggregate resource sites in the UGB expansion area. Consequently, the City Council finds that OAR 660-023-0180 is inapplicable to the UGB expansion. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 47 97 Energy Sources (OAR 660-023-0190) No natural gas, surface water, geothermal, solar, or wind area resource sites have been identified in the Woodburn area and the City Council finds that OAR 660-023-0190 is inapplicable to the UGB expansion and URA. Inventories Required by Goal 5 Performance Woodburn inventoried all natural resources, scenic, historic and open spaces, amending the Comprehensive Plan, Park Master Plan and Woodburn Development Ordinance 134 accordingly. Adopted goals, policies, and land use standards meet state standards and the City 135 has been found in compliance with Goal 5. The City Council concludes that Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. H.Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - OAR 660-015-0000(6) Goal 6 requires that “air, water and land resource quality” not be “degraded” because of planned urban development. DEQ is responsible for administration of the Clear Air Act and the Clean Water Act at the state level. Cities meet Goal 6 through demonstration of compliance with Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) air, water and land quality administrative rules. Water quality standards typically are met through EQC approval of plans for sanitary sewer systems. DEQ also regulates point and non-point source emissions related to water and air quality. Along with other affected state agencies, DEQ was notified of the proposed plan 136 amendment package. Woodburn is in compliance with all applicable EQC requirements. 134 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 1 - 55. 135 Id., pp.32- 34. 136 Id.,p. 35. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 48 98 The City Council concludes that Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. I.Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 7 requires cities to adopt measures to protect people and property from natural hazards, such as floods, erosion, landslides, earthquakes, and weak foundation soils. Because Woodburn is relatively flat, it does not have significant land slide hazards or erosion and deposition hazards. Woodburn has considerable land within the 100-year floodplains of Mill Creek, Senecal Creek andtheir tributaries. Woodburn has adopted National Floodplain regulations through Ordinance 2018. 137 Woodburn is in compliance with Goal 7. The City Council concludes that Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. J.Goal 8: Recreational Needs - OAR 660-015-0000(8) Goal 8 has no implementing administrative rule. Woodburn adopted an update to its Parks and Recreation Plan in 1999. That plan was acknowledged to comply with Goal 8 and it satisfied completion of Work Task No. 5 of the City's periodic review order. The UGB Justification Report explains how Winterbrook used the 1999 Park and 138 Recreation Plan to project years 2020 park land needs. In projecting the amount of park needs through 2020, Winterbrook applied a ratio of 7 acres per 1,000 population to project need for neighborhood parks and assumed that 50 percent of the park needs would be satisfied on school 137 Id., pp. 36 - 37. 138 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1400 - 1402 (UGBJustification Report, pp. 32-34). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 49 99 lands. As explained in the UGB Justification Report, Winterbrook applied the ratio to the projected population of 34,919 and subtracted existing park lands (including 50 percent of school sites) to determine needed park acreage. The 2005 UGB includes sufficient land to meet identified park 139 needs through the year 2020. Woodburn has an adopted Parks and Recreation Plan and is in 140 conformance with Goal 8. The City Council concludes that Goal 8: Recreational Needs is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. K.Goal 10: Housing - OAR 660-015-0000(10) The overall intent of Goal 10 is to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Goal 10 requires jurisdictions to provide the housing needs of its existing and future 141 residents. Woodburn’s population is projected to grow to 34,919 residents by 2020. There is a demonstrated need for additional single family and multi-family dwelling units over the planning 142 period that cannot be totally met within the existing UGB. The City has planned on meeting future needs and established efficiency measures to minimize the amount of lands added to the 143 UGB. It has also updated land use standards to carry out the intent of Goal 10 by providing for 144 a variety of housing types to meet its future residential needs. L.Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services - OAR 660-015-0000(11) Goal 11 requires Woodburn to demonstrate that it can provide adequate public facilities and services to serve buildable land within the UGB. Woodburn and Marion County have agreed in their Coordination Agreementthat Woodburn shall be responsible for public facilities planning 139 Rec. Item 10, p. 1402 (UGBJustification Report, p. 34). 140 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 38-39. 141 Rec. Item 10, p. 614 (Woodburn Ordinance No. 2391, November 2, 2005). 142 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1395-1412(UGB Justification Report, pp.27-44). 143 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1398-1410(UGB Justification Report, pp.30-42). 144 Ordinance 2391 (Woodburn Development Ordinance). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 50 100 145 within the Woodburn UGB. The Goal 11 rulerequires Woodburn to adopt “public facilities plans” that addresses sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water and transportation facilities necessary to support planned housing and employment growth. The City of Woodburn has adopted a Public Facilities Plan, Transportation Systems Plan, Park Master Plan and coordinated with Marion County, Woodburn Fire District and School District, assuring adequate public facilities are 146 available to meet the needs of the community. The City Council concludes that Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. M.Goal 12: Transportation - OAR 660-015-0000(12) The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) implement Goal 12. The TPR requires local governments to prepare a “transportation systems plan” (TSP) that meets the requirements of OAR 660-012-020 through 055. The OHP is a component of Oregon’s Statewide Transportation Plan, andincludes policies and investment strategies for the 147 state highway system over the next 20 years. 148 Woodburn's periodic review amendment package included an amended 2005 TSP.The adopted TSP establishes a transportation system that is adequate to serve lands within proposed 149 UGB andURA and is consistent with the Marion County TSP and the Oregon TSP. As Woodburn prepared the TSP, it coordinated with Marion County, ODOT and DLCD. 150 Other agency plans and policies affecting the TSP were reviewed and considered.The City’s 151 plans are consistent with ODOT and Marion County TSPs. 145 See OAR chapter 660, division 11. 146 City of WoodburnFindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 40-53. 147 Id., p. 42. 148 Woodburn Transportation System Plan (CHEMHill, October 2005). 149 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law p. 42. 150 Id. 151 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 51 101 Woodburn assessed the needs of the road system; public transportation; bicycle and 152 pedestrian system; air, rail, water and pipeline transportation. Woodburn prepared an inventory 153 of the existing conditions and deficiencies of its transportation system.From this information, Woodburn plan for the transportation system that included road, public transportation, and bicycle 154 and pedestrian plans and an associated financing program. Woodburn, adopted new comprehensive plan policies and zoning code language to meet the TPR requirements. The City adopted an overlay district intended to preserve planned capacity improvements to the Woodburn I-5 interchange with Oregon Highway 214. That provision is the 155 Interchange Management Area (IMA) section of the WDO. The TSP reflect changes in population, employment and land uses adopted as part of this 156 decision. The TSP includes goals and objectives, forecasts traffic growth in the City, and 157 identifies transportation improvements needed to satisfy the forecasted growth. The City has adopted a Public Facilities Plan, Transportation Systems Plan, Park Master Plan and coordinated with Marion County, WoodburnFire District and School District, assuring 158 adequate public facilities are available to meet the needs of the community.The City’s Transportation System Plan complies with the requirements of Goal 12 regarding transportation. The City Council concludesthat Goal 12: Transportation is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. 152 Id.,p. 45. 153 Id. 154 Id. 155 Id.,p. 47. 156 Id.,p. 52. 157 Id. 158 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 40-53. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 52 102 N.Goal 13: Energy Conservation - OAR 660-015-0000(13) Goal 13 Provides as follows: To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. There are no known non-renewable sources of energy within the Woodburn UGB. The 2005 UGB and URA amendments are adjacent to the existing UGB, thus maintaining a contiguous, compact, energy-efficient urban growth form and reducing vehicle miles traveled. The UGB amendments rely on gravity flow sanitary sewer collection, thus eliminating the need for sanitary sewer pump stations. Goal 13 requirements have been met by using transportation facilities more efficiently, minimizing vehicle miles traveled by placing housing near employment and providing for the 159 . logical and economical extension of public facilities The City Council concludes that Goal 13: Energy Conservation is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. O.Overall Conclusion – Statewide Planning Goals Based on the foregoing, the City Council concludes that Woodburn’s UGB amendment and URA conform to all applicable Statewide Planning Goals. On remand, Woodburn has reduced the overall amount of land included in the UGB and established safeguards to ensure efficiency of land use through the establishment of minimum residential densities and lot size requirements for industrial development. An Urban Reserve was established to meet future land use needs beyond the 20 year planning horizon. 159 Id.,p. 54. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 53 103 P.Findings on Economic Importance of the Agricultural Industry to Woodburn and to Marion County Agriculture in Oregon is a multi-billion dollar industry, and Marion County ranks number one among Oregon counties in gross agricultural sales. Agriculture is also a traded-sector industry- 80percentof all production leaves the state –and that brings new dollars back into the state and region. Agricultural exports rank number onein volume and number twoin value among all 160 Oregon exports. The agricultural industry has been growing in value in Oregon and in Marion County for over a decade. Marion County has some of the best soils in the world, and coupled with an excellent climate and water conditions the region grows a wide variety of crops. This capacity to grow a diversity of products is one of the primary attributes of the agricultural soils in the Woodburn area, and enables farmers to “quick\[ly\] adapt and respond to market changes and demands. *** The 161 burgeoning wine and nursery industries are examples of this adaptability.” 162 Agricultural sales in Marion County alone topped half a billion dollars in 2005.In 2004, 163 Marion County direct agricultural sales posted a record high. The County has significant infrastructure and related “cluster” industries that both support this agricultural economy and contribute to economic growth of the region and state. As the Marion County Farm Bureau stated, “Agricultural land is industrial land, land that is supporting a 164 successful portion of our county’s economy.” 160 Data from Oregon Departmentof Agriculture, included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug. 23, 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 101. 161 Letter from Kathleen and Lolita Carl, fifth generation local farmers, August 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 169. 162 Data from Oregon Department. of Agriculture, included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug. 23, 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 101. 163 Marion County Farm Bureau, letter of August 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 162. 164 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 54 104 Woodburn is situated in the heart of this agricultural region. Woodburn residents work in 165 all facets of the agricultural industry. Woodburn businesses, such as insurance companies, banks, and law and accounting firms, provide services to farms and farmers. Woodburn businesses 166 And, Woodburn businesses process agricultural sell and repair agricultural equipment. products, thereby adding retail value. During the decade of the 1990s, employment in the 167 agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector grew by 39percentin the Woodburn zip code. No other 168 sector employs a greater percentage of Woodburn residents.Between 1990-1999, employment in the agricultural services sector in the Woodburn zip code grew by 476percent, far exceeding 169 the average growth rate of 57percentfor the same area. Woodburn follows the State of Oregon in projecting the agricultural economy of the region to continue growing and being a significant contributor to the City’s and region’s economies. Because unlike any other industry, the agricultural industry is dependent on the rich soils, climate, and water of the area, the City chooses to focus other employment and residential growth in the existing UGB, while being conservative in any expansions of thatUGB –both in terms of acreage and in terms of valuable farm land. The City further recognizes that development of valuable farmland has a “spillover” impact on surrounding farms and agricultural activities, by creating urban traffic congestion in farming areas, and increasing conflicts such as vandalism, theft, trespassing, and complaints about common 170 Therefore, the City will work with the Marion farm practices, such as night-time harvesting. County to minimize the impacts of urbanization at the “edge,” including by designing roads and buffers at the edge that will discourage incompatible urban traffic in and near farming areas. 165 Rec. Item 6, p. 162: Letter of Marion County Farm Bureau, August 22, 2006; Woodburn Economic Opportunity Analysis, May 2001, p. 2 - 4 Table 2 - 3; Rec. Item 10, p. 1022. 166 Rec. Item 6, p. 170: Carl family, Pudding River Ranch letter of August 23, 2006 167 Woodburn Economic Opportunity Analysis, May 2001, p. 2-4 Table 2-3; Rec. Item 10, p. 1022. 168 Id., pp. 3-10 Table 3 - 8; Rec. Item 10, p. 1040. 169 Id.,p. 2-2; Rec. Item 10, p. 1020. 170 Letter from Kathleen and Lolita Carl, fifth generation local farmers, August 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 170. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 55 105 In particular, the areas to the north and northeast of the current UGB and to the west of Butteville Road NE consist of the highest quality soils and are part of larger and very productive agricultural regions. The area north of the current UGB, known as Study Area 2, consists primarily of Class I 171 and IIsoils, the most productive and highest capability soils that exist. Current agricultural uses 172 include filberts (a high value crop), grass seed, orchards, and grain.The soils are also suitable 173 for hops, vegetables, berries, and other crops. The farming units are large, and are part of a 174 larger agricultural area of excellent soils sweeping to the north and northeast. Similarly, the land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which is in Study Area 8 and 175 some of which is to the west of that Study Area, consists primarily of Class I and IIsoils.Almost 176 all the resource land in Study Area 8 is also high-value farmland.The soils are capable of growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, hops, orchards, hay, vegetables, grass 177 seed, and more. This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of an agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west. The land northeast of the City is in Study Area 3. Agricultural soils in Study Area 3 are 178 primarily Class II (prime) and high-value.These soils are suitable for the wide range of crops 179 described above. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, requires that the Woodburn and Marion County comprehensive plans, implementation measures, and other land use and transportation actions be both consistent 171 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15).See map at Attachment2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 172 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1429-1430(UGB Justification Report, pp.61-62). 173 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1441-1446 (Id., pp. 73-76 and Table 18). 174 Id. 175 Rec. Item 10 p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15) and Rec. Item 10 p. 1442 (UGB Justification Report, p. 74, Table 18). 176 Technical Report 3, Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis, November 2002, p. 9, Table 4b. 177 Rec Item 10, pp.1442-1444 (UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). 178 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15). 179 Rec Item 10, pp.1442-1444 (UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 56 106 and coordinated with one another. Therefore, Woodburn and Marion County have entered into a Coordination Agreement. The Coordination Agreement is “required to be consistent with the Urban Growth 180 and it is to be Management Framework of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan,” 181 “\[c\]oordinate\[d\]…with…the Marion County Comprehensive Plan.” The Marion County comprehensive land use plan includes the Urbanization element. The Coordination Agreementand Urbanization element of the County’s plan all recognize the primacy of the county’s agricultural industry; the need to reduce conflicts between urban uses and natural resource uses; the desire for compact, diverse and walkable neighborhoods; the need to efficiently use existing urban land and the adverse impacts of sprawling development patterns; and the financial necessity to use infrastructure efficiently. For example, the County’s Urbanization policy describes the both the importance of the agricultural industry and the conflicts that can result from sprawling urban development patterns: “\[T\[he problems that sprawl poses to people of Marion County are probably more crucial than in most other areas because of the importance of natural resources to the local 182 economy.” “The problems associated with a pattern of sprawling development involve both direct and indirect monetary and social costs, affecting allpeople of the County, whether urban or rural. Some of the problems resulting from sprawl are: a.A land use pattern which is less desirable and less stable than could be achieved by coordinated, planned development; b.A land use pattern which is costly to develop and service; 180 Coordination Agreement, p. 6. 181 Id.,p. 1. 182 Marion County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Urbanization, p. IID-1. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 57 107 c.A greater expenditure of land and energy resources; and 183 d.A greater disruption of agricultural uses.” “As urban areas continue to expand, these resource landsare either directly converted to urban uses orare adversely impacted due to inherent conflicts between rural and urban activities.*** If agricultural, forestry and other land resource based interests areto remain 184 sound, then the pattern of urbanization needs to be contained.” The Urbanization policy recognizes in particular the economic and social reasons for compact urban development patterns, focused inside existing UGBs: “Urban Growth Policies *** “The mutual agreement of the cities and the County to these policies is vital to the effective coordination and cooperation necessary to implement each urban growth program. The following are urban growth policies that should guide the conversion of the urbanizable areas adjacent to each city to urban uses. *** “2. The provision of urban services and facilities should be in an orderly economic basis according to a phased growth plan. 3. Development of the urban area should proceed from its center outward. 4. Development should occur in areas of existingservices before extending new 185 services.” The “purpose of the Urban Growth Management Framework is to”: 183 Id. 184 Id.,p. IID-2. 185 Id.,p. 6. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 58 108 “3. Protect farm, forest, and resource lands throughout the County by considering the existing growth capacity of each community, fostering the efficient use of land, and 186 evaluating urban growth boundary expansion needs.” In recognition of the dual goals of protecting the region’s agricultural industry and providing for urban development, the City and County have agreed to the following Framework: “One of the most important functions of City plans is the ability to plan for urban growth boundary expansions needed to accommodate projected growth. At the same time, one of the highest principles of Marion County is to prevent sprawl in order to protect valuable farm and forest lands. Included in the Framework strategy are land efficiency guidelines 187 for cities to consider in analyzing land needs.” To meet its Goal 2 legal obligations under the Coordination Agreementand the Urban Growth Management Framework of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan, as well as it Goal 10 needed housing, Goal 9 economic development, and Goals 11 and 14 efficient use of existing land and infrastructure obligations, this Woodburn UGB decision incorporates the following land efficiency actions: • Focus most residential development in the existing UGB, primarily in higher density, mixed use and walkable areas near schools and services. (SeeIV B.5 of the findings) • Accommodate most commercial employment and much of the industrial employment inside theexisting UGB, on vacant lands and through infill and re- development. (See IV 3 and 4 of the findings) • Minimize the amount of any UGB expansion, and direct any expansion to lands that are of lesser quality agricultural soils and situated where the conflicts between urban and rural uses can be minimized. (See IV C of the findings) 186 Id.,p. 8. 187 Id., p. 10. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 59 109 • Incorporate requirements to minimize conflicts between urban and rural uses at the UGB edge. (See VI of the findings) • Protect the economy of Woodburn by minimizing the unnecessary extension of infrastructure –including roads and sewer and water service –through more efficient use of the existing land and infrastructure inside the UGB. (SeeIV C of the findings) VIII.ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: UGB in Response to Remand Map. Attachment 2:Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. Attachment 3:Urban Reserve Map. Attachment 4:UGB Expansion Limitation Map. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 60 110 P S / P O C O C PS/P P S / P P S / P O C P S / P O C G O C C M R M R 111 M R O C PS/P M R R1S R1S 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitation Attachment 2 p. 1456 Study Areas & Soils Item 10, Capability Class Map UGB Justification Report 112 - Woodburn Source: YR A D N UO B H T W O RG N A B RU T N E RR U C 113 DR EL LIV ETT UB 5 E T A T S R E T N I R D U EA AT H C D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P N O I N U 114 Y A W N O D S I 5L R 6 L AD R Y MYR EE C A D NTVR R S Y A R R E L ATA D L W IS P VE R E H D E TER TT N R U G N E BEE R CR G E R E V B )E T V S P (KCD R YEN W 7 CIRRA O L1 E 5 IR VEM N A AND DLCR OOE W- HC 9 E 1 N) IT 2 V PP ( Y DR NEE RGREV E S W R I C H T S E A T IE R VS A A K EE R D N T EP AVE LI D S Y NA ON L O WULI J T NH I S B O Y RR T O JS N EVA DNAL DOOW S EE VA D NAL D VOO W E TS ESIDA RAP ET V S A T AICA CA ES V R A E A I P C O A O C TT AH S S T S A S A D T E NMV IA AH RAD LEC G C U A TS EIRI ARP N Y C M W H E G V A R E V A E E EVA E VILO WV O I L B L IL W O W E N - 9 1 2 Y EVA M LAP K W E E RH C L E E A V C T E A N A E E ST Y R A O S W MN AO S CI L Y EVA L EROMA SCYSA Y C A T 5 S E T ) A T T V S R P STI MIL YT IC (E T N N I T L C M N E UVA WOL OLIW L S P R A C ) Y T A V W L I)P A ( RT STI MIL Y TIC V EN FD PL A(A T D NO N AO R SL OL N AI R A W ER HR ED T E RV O RC N I N5 R 6 O RT T M G C N ID E L R L R UE E BL L I V E T T U B T S 9 T 1 2 S Y W H E T A T S K D D CR N I2E L LI V E MT T U B R O C c T SM 1 2 7 RM DR ELLIVE TTUB 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitation (No.1) 9 1 2 Y W H E T A T S Y A W L I A R E F A T N A S N R E N H TL R OY N E N N O T F G NA I L T R S U EB N DD R R Y R A C E I L L B U P ) 8 1 5 R C ( D R N U R B E L 9 1 2 Y W H E T A T S MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Board Session Agenda Review Form Meeting date: Monday, December 14, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. Department: Agenda Planning Date: Time required: Public Works 12/7/15 10 min Audio/Visual aids None Contact:Phone: Brandon Reich503-566-4175 Department Head Signature: Marion County Ordinance Adopting City of Woodburn Revised Urban Growth Boundary TITLE Issue, Description & The City of Woodburn is in periodic review to consider a revision to its urban growth boundary (UGB). BackgroundAfter previously adopting a revised UGB in 2006, the boundary analysis was appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which remanded the decision back to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). LCDC in turn remanded the UGB to the city and county for further consideration. The city and county must both consider adopting the revised UGB, which would then be reviewed by LCDC for consideration in completing the city©s periodic review work task. Financial Impacts: None Impacts to Department None & External Agencies Options for 1. The board of commissioners may adopt the ordinance as provided. Consideration:2. The board of commissioners may adopt the ordinance with changes noted. 3. The board of commissioners may ask the ordinance be revised and brought back for its consideration at a later date. Recommendation: Staff recommends the board of commissioners adopt the ordinance by emergency procedure. List of attachments: Ordinance Presenter: Brandon Reich, Scott Norris, and City of Woodburn staff Copies of completed paperwork sent to the following: (Include names and e-mail addresses.) Copies to: Brandon Reich breich@co.marion.or.us 115 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR MARION COUNTY, OREGON In the matter of an Ordinance amending ) LA 06-2 The Marion County Comprehensive Plan ) by adopting amendments to the City of ) Woodburn Comprehensive Plan including ) coordinated population forecasts of 34,919 ) for the year 2020 and 37,295 for the year ) 2031, a revised urban growth boundary, ) an urban reserve, expansion limited areas, ) and declaring an emergency. ) ORDINANCE NO. _______ THE MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Purpose This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority granted general law counties in the State of Oregon by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 203, and the comprehensive land use planning and coordination with local government provisions under Chapters 195 and 197toamend the Marion County Comprehensive Plan by adopting amendments to the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan including coordinated population forecasts of 34,919 for the year 2020and 37,295 for the year 2031, a revised urban growth boundary, an urban reserve, and expansion limited areas. SECTION II. Authorization This comes before the Marion County Board of Commissioners as a result of a remand order from the Land Conservationand Development Commission. The legislative amendments before the Board arefor concurrence in and adoption of amendments being considered by the City of Woodburn, as part of its Periodic Review work program to update the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the planning coordination,concurrence provisions, and urban reserves designationunder ORS Chapters 195 and 197,and the provisions of the executed October 5, 2005Urban Growth Boundary Coordination Agreement between Marion County and the City of Woodburn that establishes procedures for addressing land use matters of mutual concern, including amendments to the comprehensive plan and urban growth boundary. The Board held a public hearing jointly with the Woodburn City Council on December 14, 2015for which proper public notice and advertisement was given. The Board closed the hearing on December 14, 2015. All persons present during the public hearing and those provided notice of the hearing, were given the opportunity to speak or present written statements on the proposed amendments. SECTION III.Evidence and Findings The Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in the record. Based on the facts and findings in the record, as contained in Exhibits A and B, which are incorporated herein by this reference, the Board determines that the amendedCity of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan conforms 116 with the requirements under ORS Chapter 197 and the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals and Administrative Rules for the development and revision of comprehensive plans, with ORS Chapter 195 for county coordination with local comprehensive plan activities, with ORS Chapters 195 and 197 for the designation of urban reserves and amendments to the Marion County Comprehensive Plan Urbanization Element on coordination regarding the urban reserve and expansion limited areas set forth in Exhibit C. The City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendments adopt a coordinated population forecastof 34,919for the 20-year planning period of the plan (2000to 2020) and a coordinated population forecast of 37,295 for the year 2031 for an additional 11-year planning period concurrent with the designation of urban reserves. The Woodburn Comprehensive Plan update involves a revised urban growth boundary, as depicted on the map set forth in Exhibit D, the designation of expansion limited areas, as depicted on the map set forth in Exhibit E,and an urban reserve, as depicted on the map set forth in Exhibit F. The Board finds that the adoption of the amendments are consistent with the provisions of the intergovernmental coordination agreement between Marion County and the City of Woodburn. The Board further finds that the amendments are in compliance with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals and Administrative Rules, ORS Chapters 195 and 197, and applicable provisions of the Urbanization Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. SECTION IV. Amendments to Marion County Comprehensive Plan The Marion County Comprehensive Plan is amended to include the adoption of an updated City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan for application in the area within the urban growth boundary that lies outside the city limits. The Marion County Comprehensive Plan is amended to include the adoption of a coordinated population forecastof 34,919 for the year 2020 and 37,295 for the year 2031 for the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The Marion County Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to reflect the revised urban growth boundary. SECTION V.Repeal Of Portions Of Existing Ordinances Those portions of Marion County Ordinances No. 572 and No. 1233 adopting a City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendments and revised Urban Growth Boundary and a comprehensive plan for the area, are hereby repealed or amended as set forth in this ordinance through the adoption of the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendments, which by reference are incorporated into this Ordinance. SECTION VI.Severability Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or any policy, provision, findings, statement, conclusion, or designation to a particular land use or area of land, or any other portion, segment or element of this Ordinance or of any amendments thereto and adopted hereunder, be declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity and continued application of any other portion or element of this Ordinance or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, as amended herein; and if this Ordinance or any portion thereof should be held to be invalid on one ground, but valid on another, it shall be construed that the valid ground is the one upon which this Ordinance of any portion thereof was enacted. 2 117 SECTION VII.Effective Date This Ordinance amending the Marion County Comprehensive Plan by adopting amendments to the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, an urban growth boundary amendment, coordinated population forecasts, designation of urban reserves, and establishment ofexpansion limited areas, being necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, an emergency is declared to exist and this Ordinance shall become effective upon its passage. SIGNED and FINALIZED this ______ day of December 2015 at Salem, Oregon. MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS __________________________________________ Chair __________________________________________ Recording Secretary JUDICIAL NOTICE Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 197.830 provides that land use decisions may be reviewed by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by filing a notice of intent to appeal within 21 days from the date this ordinance becomes final. 3 118 Exhibit A FACTS AND FINDINGS BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Marion County Board of Commissioners as the result of a remand order from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). In 2006, the city and county jointly adopted amendments to the city’s urban growth boundary (UGB). The amendments were approved by LCDC and subsequently appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, twice. The most recent remand from the court caused LCDC to remand to the city and county the UGB amendmentsfor their further consideration. The City of Woodburn first adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1979. The Marion County Board of Commissioners adopted the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary and Comprehensive Plan for the area outside the city but within the boundary on February 6, 1980 (Ordinance No. 572). The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) acknowledged the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan onMarch 20, 1981. Marion County and the City of Woodburn entered into an urban growth boundary coordination agreementonOctober 5, 2005. The agreementestablished procedures for coordinating land use matters of mutual concern. The agreementprovides for the county to concur in the city’s comprehensive plan and to adopt those provisions for application within the urban growth area (the area within the urban growth boundary outside the city limits). Such provisions include urbanization policy changes, plan map amendments affecting properties in the urban growth area, and urban growth boundary changes. Subsequent to the most recent remand from the court of appeals, the parties to the appeal entered into mediation. County staff participated in that mediation and in the drafting and review of findings pertaining to the amendments and the revised urban growth coordination agreement. On November 4, 2015, the Board of Commissioners scheduledajoint public hearing with the Woodburn City Council forDecember 14, 2015 to receive testimony on the proposed amendments. CITY OF WOODBURNCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendments involve coordinating a population forecast for the years 2020 and 2031for the city and revising the location of its urban growth boundary. Population Coordination Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 195.025tasks the county with coordinating comprehensive planning among the cities in the county. Previously, the city and county coordinated a population forecast for Woodburn for the year 2020 for use when establishing its urban growth boundary. The county adopted this forecast in November 2004 (Ordinance No. 1201) and the city also adopted the forecast. 1 119 In 2009, the county adopted coordinated forecasts for all the cities in the county for the year 2030. This forecast also included an average annual growth rate. The city proposes to project the adopted 2030 forecast using the average annual growth rate to the year 2031 for use in establishing urban reserves. This isconsistent with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) division 660-032, whichprovides a means to coordinate a population forecast for a city. Oregon Revised Statutes,Oregon Administrative Rules and Statewide Land Use Planning Goals The City of Woodburn is proposing to revise its urban growth boundary. The city demonstrated in its evidence and findings that the proposal complies with the applicable state statutes andrules and is consistent with the statewide land use planning goals. The proposal to bring land into the UGB for residential, public and employment purposes establisesa UGB sized to serve a population of 34,919 in the year 2020. The city also intends to establish an urban reserve that would contain adequate land to serve additional population for the City of Woodburn to the year 2031. The urban reserve would remainrural, outside the UGB until such time as Woodburn again considers the amount of land in its UGB. At that time, the land in the rural reserve would be the highest priority of land for the city to consider bringing into the UGB to meet the needs of future population growth. Marion County Comprehensive Plan The Urban Growth policies containedin the Urbanization section of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan must also be reviewed against the proposal. The city has demonstrated that it is able to provide adequate residential, commercial, industrial and public lands to meet the needs of the city for the next 20 years. The city will continue to be the provider of urban services to land within its UGB and there will be a sufficient amount of developable land to provide choices in the market place to residents, employers and employees. The city also considered the impact of nearby agricultural areas on the city’s growth and development and identified, with the county, means to ensure that the agricultural production on nearby land is not impacted by the UGB expansion. The city’s proposal is consistent with the Urban Growth policies and growth management framework goals in the Urbanization Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. URBAN GROWTH COORDINATION AGREEMENT The existing urban growth boundary coordination agreement willbe revised into an urban growth coordinationagreement to address both city/county coordination on issues within the urban growth boundary and city/county agreements on how to manage rural land within the urban reserve area and expansion limited areas. The revised urban growth coordination agreement implements the requirements for urban reserves planning contained in ORS 195.145 and OAR division 660-021. Also adopted are conforming amendments to the Urbanization Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan recognizing the importance of agriculture near Woodburn as the reason for implementing urban reserves and expansion limited areas. DECISION The Board concursin the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan amendmentsby approving amendments to the Marion County Comprehensive Plan by adopting amendments to the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan including coordinated population forecasts of 34,919 for the year 2020 and 37,295 for the year 2031, a revised urban growth boundary, an urban reserve, and expansion limited areas. 2 120 Exhibit B Legislative Findings on Remand Woodburn Periodic Review Work Task 2 and UGB in Response to RemandAmendment I.INTRODUCTION This matter came before the City of Woodburn on remand from the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Land Conservation and Development Commission(LCDC). These findings and the already existingevidentiary record support the City’s decision on remand to: expand the urban growth boundary (UGB), designate an urban reserve area (URA), and establish two long- term expansion limitations. The UGB expansion consists of approximately 619 gross acres. This includes approximately 190 acres for industrial use, 23 acres for commercial use, and 406 acres for residential use. The URA is west and south of Parr Road, and consists of approximately 230 gross acres. The two 20-year expansion limits are Expansion Limit No. 1, located along Butteville Road, and Expansion Limit No. 2, located east of Highway 99E at Carl 1 Road. As part of completingPeriodic Review Work Task 2 and the UGB in Response to Remandamendment, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the City of Woodburn/Marion County Urban Growth Coordination Agreement(Coordination Agreement)are amended to incorporate the two 20-year UGB Expansion Limits, to the west of Butteville Road and to the east of Highway 99E at Carl Road. The Woodburn UGB will not be expanded for any purpose beyond these limits for a period of 20 years from the date this decision isfinal, including any appeals. A.CaseHistory On July 30, 1997, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) approved the City of Woodburn’s Periodic Review Work Program. All Periodic Review Work Tasks have been completed by Woodburn and approved by DLCD except Work Task 2, the Commercial and Industrial Lands Inventory. Work Task 2required Woodburn to evaluate its 1 See Attachment1: UGB in Responseto RemandMap. 121 commercial and industrial needs over a 20-year period and initiate any changes to accommodate needs, which could include changes to plan and zone designations and the UGB. Following is the timeline of relevant events carrying out this Periodic Review: November 2, 2005:Ordinance 2391was finally adopted by the Woodburn City Council approving a UGB expansion and other Periodic Review Work Tasks. July 19, 2006: Marion County Board of Commissioners co-adopted the UGB expansion. August 3, 2006: City and County submit Ordinance 2391 and co-adopting ordinanceto DLCD. DLCD determinesthesubmittal is complete on August 4. August 22 - 24, 2006: Ten objections are timely filed. January 25, 2007: LCDCheld a hearing on Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment and made an oral decision to approve Woodburn’s submittal. February 14, 2007: LCDC issued written Approval Order 07-WKTASK-001720. April 12, 2007:1000 Friends of Oregon, Marion County Farm Bureau, Lolita Carl, Kathleen Carl, Diane Mikkelson, Carla Mikkelson, and Friends of Marion County petitioned theOregon Court of Appeals for judicial review of LCDC's Order. September 8, 2010: Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LCDC’s decision, in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Woodburn I), 237 Or App 213 (2010). Appellate judgment entered November 30, 2010. January 12, 2011: LCDC held a hearing on a draft revised order and heard argument from the parties on the record. LCDC again orally approved Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 2 122 March 16, 2011: LCDC issued Approval Order 11-WKTASK-001802. May 12, 2011:1000 Friends of Oregon, Marion County Farm Bureau, Lolita Carl, Kathleen Carl, Diane Mikkelson and Friends of Marion County petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals for judicial review of LCDC's order. January 2, 2014:Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LCDC’s decision in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Woodburn II), 260 Or App 444 (2014). July 24 - 25, 2014: LCDC unanimously voted to initiate a mediation assessment, to be conducted by Oregon Consensus, because mediation had "the potential to resolve the City's UGB amendment.” December 23, 2014: Oregon Consensus submits its Assessment Report to LCDC, concluding: “While there are significant challenges in mediating a solution to the dispute over the City of Woodburn’s proposal for expanding industrial land within an amended urban growth boundary, there is a possibility of success if parties are willing to (1)seriously examine their own interests and objectives, (2) strive to understand the interests of the other parties, and (3) seek solutions that meet multiple interests and avoid the significant economic and social costs of alternative forums. It is suggested that the parties use the selection of a mediator as an opportunity to practice collaboration.” March 30, 2015: All parties to Woodburn IIenter into mediation. April and May, 2015:All parties to Woodburn IIsign a Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement. May 21, 2015:LCDC passed a motion to“remand the City of Woodburn’s Periodic Review Work Task 2 and UGB amendment for further action and establish a resubmittal date of December 1, 2015.” Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 3 123 Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 4 124 B.Oregon Courtof Appeals Decisions On remand to LCDC the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded: “Because we conclude that LCDC again did not adequately explain why the City’s expansion of its UGB to include an additional 409 acres for industrial use is consistent with pertinent law, we reverse the order and remand for reconsideration.” Woodburn II, 260 Or App at 446. “We have carefully reviewed LCDC’s entire order on remand, and we conclude that LCDC did not adequately explain the reasons that led it to conclude the City’s UGB amendment complied with applicable law.” Woodburn II, 260 Or App at 460. C.Mediation Process All parties to Woodburn IIentered into mediation on March 30, 2015 to resolve issues and continued litigation related to the City's UGB amendment. This mediation was successful and a Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement was approved by 1000 Friends of Oregon, Friends of Marion County, Theodora Schrier (as personal representative for Lolita Carl, deceased), Kathleen Carl, Diane Mikkelson, MarionCounty Farm Bureau, DLCD, Marion County and the City of Woodburn. For purposes of transparency and legal defensibility, it is important to place in context how the Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement relates to the land use decision that is explained and justified by these Legislative Findings on Remand. This matter –the City of Woodburn’s Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the related urban growth boundary amendment - is on remand from the Court of Appeals toLCDCand from LCDC to the City of Woodburn and Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 5 125 Marion County.Any subsequent land use decisions made by the City of Woodburn, and Marion County, and work task approval decisions made by LCDC pursuant to that remand must comply with Oregon land use law, including the decisions of the Oregon Court of Appeals, as well as laws regarding land use decision-making processes. Through mediation, the parties have agreed to a map and substantive elements of Work Task 2 and the UGB decision, reflected in the framework for the anticipated future land use actions. If the anticipated future land use actions conform to this framework, the parties have agreed to forego any future legal challenges regarding Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the related UGB amendment. Pursuant to the Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement and the Court of Appeals’ decisions, LCDC remanded the underlying decision to the City. II.PROCEDURAL MATTERS ON REMAND A.City Procedure on Remand Absent specific instructions from a reviewing tribunal or applicable local regulations, a city is entitled to limit the scope of a remand proceeding to that of addressing the legal deficiencies articulated by the appellate opinion ordering the remand. In the instant case, it is completely appropriate for the City to adopt a revised Work Task 2and related UGB in Response to Remandamendment, relying upon relevant portions of the already existing record to better explain and justify its UGB action. Having already afforded extensive opportunities to present evidence over the course of these UGB proceedings, the City is not obligated, on remand, to afford an opportunity to present new evidence, but may proceed on the already existing record. B.Record on Remand Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 6 126 The remand proceedings were conducted based on the existing evidentiary record submitted by the City of Woodburn to DLCD on August 3, 2006, as part of its submission of Periodic Review Work Tasks 1-4, 7-11, and a related UGB amendment. In particular, these Legislative Findings on Remand rely on and incorporate by reference the Woodburn UGB Justification Report (Winterbrook Planning, October 2005), and Buildable Lands Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, July 2005). Much of the Justification Report and Buildable Lands Inventory provide the basis for this decision. In any instances where these documents conflict with, or are inconsistent with, these Legislative Findings on Remand, the language of Legislative Findings on Remand shall prevail. III.APPLICABLE LAW A.General Evaluation and expansion of a UGB requires application of several interrelated statutes, statewide land use Goals, and administrative rules: ORS 197.298, Goal 14, and OAR chapter 2 As part of its 660. Woodburn opted to complete its Periodic Review under the new Goal 14. Goal 14 UGB analysis, Woodburn must address capacity needs under Goal 9 (Economic Development) and Goal 10 (Housing), and related statutes and administrative rules, OAR chapter 660, divisions 8 and 9. LCDC’s administrative rules implementing Goal 9 were adopted on December 1, 2005 not and do apply. The division 9 rules "Industrial and Commercial Development" adopted by LCDC prior to that do apply. B.Amount of Land A key issue that was extensively briefed in both Woodburn I and Woodburn IIis whether the City included more employment land in its original UGB expansion proposal than was necessary to accommodate its needs over the 20-year planning period in violation of Goals 9 and 2 Rec. Item 10, p.1372; ER-4; Remand Rec. 0006. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 7 127 14. This issue, with the same applicable legal standards, must also be addressed in justifying the UGB in Response to Remand. The Oregon Court of Appeals has explained how ORS 197.298and Goal 14 are to be applied to a UGB expansion. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (McMinnville), 244 Or App 239 (2011). Although that case was based on the old Goal 14, thenew Goal 14 and OAR chapter 660, division 24 were designed to clarify and streamline the existing Goal 14, not change it 3 substantively. The applicable legal requirements are found in ORS 197.712, Goal 9, OAR chapter 660, division 9 (2005), and Goal 14. The first step is to determine the “amount of land needed” and a “differentiation of land use types according to their land consumption attributes,” under Goal 14. McMinnville, 244 Or App at 256. Goal 14 requires that (emphasis added): “Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the following: (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a 20-year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments; and (2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space, or any combination of the need categories in this subsection (2). “In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need.” The Goal 9 ruleprovides that “\[t\]he total acreage of land designated in each site category shall at least equal the projected land needs for each category during the 20-year planning 3 Goal 14 was amended, effective April 28, 2005. As stated on DLCD’s website, the new Goal 14 and OAR chapter 660, division 24were designed “to clarify and streamline the UGB amendment process,”not to change it substantivelyhttp://www.oregon.gov/LCD/rulemaking_2005-07.shtml. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 8 128 period.” OAR 660-009-0025 (2005) To accomplish that, compatible employment uses with similar site characteristics are combined into “broad site categories.” OAR 660-009-0025(1) Jurisdictions should limit incompatible uses on and adjacent to sites as necessary to protect them for their intended employment function. Under Goal 10 and the Goal 10 rule, Woodburn must ensure there is sufficient capacity to meet its housing needs for the planning period, meaning “housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels.” OAR 660-008-0005(6). This requires that “\[s\]ufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection.” OAR 660-008-0010. If there is a need to accommodate population or employment growth, the jurisdiction must first look to land inside the existing UGB to accommodate that need. Goal 14; McMinnville, 244 Or App at 255-57; 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of North Plains, 27 Or LUBA 373, 390,aff’d 130 Or App 406, 882 P2d 1130 (1994). C.Alternative Sites Analysis If some or all of the identified need cannot be accommodated inside the UGB, the jurisdiction then moves to the second step: “application of ORS 197.298 (1) and (3), together with Goal 14, to locate and justify inclusion of land to fill that quantified need.” McMinnville, 244 Or App at 257. This starts with the identification of buildable land contiguous to the UGB. Id.at 26-27. The jurisdiction must follow the priority statute, ORS 197.298, sequentially. City ofWest Linn, 201 Or App 419, 440 (2005); D.S.Parklane Development, Inc. v Metro, 165 Or App 1, 20-21 (2000). As applied here, the City, when seeking a UGB expansion, must look first to any lands 4 The City must then look designated as urban reserves, none of which exist around Woodburn. 4 The Urban Reserve Area adopted with this decision is not an acknowledged urban reserve available for consideration in this analysis. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 9 129 5 to “second priority” lands - those designated as exception areas.If the amount of land designated as exception areas is “inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed,” 6 Woodburn would next look to the third category of “marginal” lands.Finally, the City may consider the “fourth priority” lands – those designated for agriculture or forestry. In selecting from among agricultural lands, higher priority for inclusion in the UGB must be given to those lands of lower productive capability as measured by soil classification. ORS 197.298 (2). That is, agricultural lands with poorer quality soils must be included in the UGB before those with 7 more valuable soils. Class I and II soils are the most valuable agricultural soils. If the amount ofland within a category exceeds the need, then the jurisdiction must use the boundary location factors of Goal 14, “consistent with ORS 197.298,” to choose among those “like” lands. The “relevant Goal 14 considerations in assessing the adequacy of land ina priority class under ORS 197.298 (1)” are what were factors 5 and 7 in oldGoal 14, and are now factors 3 and 4 innewGoal 14: “(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and (4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.” McMinnville, 244 Or App at 265. A decision to include or exclude land from a UGB must be based on a balancing of all these factors, rather than reliance on any one factor. Parklane, 165 Or App at 25; 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Metro (Ryland Homes), 174 Or App 406, 409-10 (2001). It is possible to include in a UGB expansion lands of lower priority ahead of lands of higher priority under ORS 197.298, but only if one or more of the three narrow reasons described in ORS 197.298(3)(a)-(c) is found to exist. Those exceptions to the priorities are: 5 “Exception areas” are those lands for which an exception to the statewide planning goals for farm or forest lands, taken under ORS 197.732, has been acknowledged. 6 No marginal lands exist in Marion County. 7 Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agriculture; ORS 197.298. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 10 130 “(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons: (a)Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; (b)Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (c)Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands.” IV.LAND USE DECISION - UGB A.Summary of Decision Inthis decisionon remand, the City approves a UGB in Response to Remand expansion, 8 the designation of an URA, and the establishment of two long-term expansion limitations.The UGB expansion consists of approximately 619 gross acres. This includes approximately 190 acres for industrial use, 23 acres for commercial use, and 406 acres for residential use. The URA is west and south of Parr Road, and consists of approximately 230 gross acres. The two 20-year expansion limits are Expansion Limit No. 1, located along Butteville Road, and Expansion Limit No. 2, located east of Highway 99E at Carl Road. The 190 acres brought into the UGB for industrial purposes will form the Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR). The City’s 2020 Employment Forecast, Industrial Land Needs Analysis, Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), Economic Development Strategy (EDS), and Target Industry Site Suitability support this expansion of the UGB for industrial use. In particular, these inform the City’s decisions to plan, zone, andprotect the 190 industrial 8 See Attachment1: UGB in Response to RemandMap. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 11 131 expansion acres for future industrial use consistent with the Targeted Industries report. As explained below, the amount of employment land included in the UGB is justified by the traditional employee-per-acre method of estimating future industrial land needs. The expansion areas for residential use consist of the Southwest residential expansion area (approximately 151 gross acres), the North expansion area (consisting of approximately 79 gross acres), the Northwest area (consisting of approximately 155 gross acres), and two small areas in the southeast (consisting of approximately 21 gross acres) totaling approximately 406 acres. As part of the Periodic Review Work Task 2 and the UGB amendment, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the Coordination Agreement are amended to incorporate the two 20- year UGB Expansion Limits, to the west of Butteville Road and to the east of Highway 99E at Carl Road. The Woodburn UGB will not be expanded for any purpose beyond these two limits identified on Attachment 1 for a period of 20 years from the date this decision (Periodic Review Work Task 2 and UGB) are final, including any appeals. B.Need 1.Population Projection to 2020 In accordance with state law, the City of Woodburn's Population Projection is for a total 9 of 34,919 people by 2020.Woodburn is experiencing growth in two major population cohorts: a young population and an older population, both of which need and are demanding smaller 10 housing options (small-lot single family, townhouse, and multi-family). Net migration accounted for approximately 63percentof population growth in Marion 11 County in the decade prior to the time period for which this UGB is being evaluated. The 9 Rec. Item 10, p. 614 (Woodburn Ordinance No. 2391, November 2, 2005). 10 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1397, 1399 (UGB Justification Report, pp. 29, 31). 11 Rec. Item 10, p. 1024 (Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, p. 2-6). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 12 132 12 hourly wage upon moving to Marion County was less than thestatewide average.Per capita 13 personal income in Marion County has also been below the State and national average. Employment growth in the 3-county region is projected to be overwhelmingly in the Services, 14 Retail Trade, and Government sectors.These socio-economic trends support the need for more diverse, smaller, and affordable housing types. 2.Employment Projection to 2020 Woodburn projects 8,374 new employees by the year 2020(for a total of 18,762 jobs). Of that, Woodburn projects a total of 2,710 new industrial jobs and 5,664 new commercial and 15 other jobs by the year 2020. Woodburn’s consultant, ECONorthwest, analyzed which industries are likely to locate or expand in Woodburn over the long-term, extending beyond the time period of this UGB 16 evaluation. Woodburn’s consultant described 13 industries most likely to locate or grow in Woodburn, which have a variety of different site size and location preferences, ranging from 1- 17 acre sites in mixed-use areas to 20+ acre sites, to business parks, to areas restricted to industry. The transportation needs also vary, from industries that desire foot traffic and local shoppers to 18 those that move materials by freight and need good road access for trucks. 3.Non-Industrial Employment As described in the UGBJustification Report, the current Woodburn UGB and two commercial expansion areas comprising 23 acres can accommodate the City’s projected non- 12 Id., pp. 1024-25; pp. 2-6, 2-7. 13 Id., p. 1025; p, 2-7. 14 Id., p. 1028; p. 2-10. 15 Rec. Item 10,p. 1096, Table 11 (ECONorthwest memorandum, April 29, 2002, p. 18). 16 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1054-1075 (Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, p. 4-3 through p. B-4). 17 Rec. Item 10,pp. 1059-1060 (Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, pp. 4-8, 4-9). 18 Id., pp. 1072-75(pp. B-1 through B-4). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 13 133 industrial employment growth. The City continues to rely on the UGB Justification Report for the accommodation of non-industrial employment. 4.Industrial Employment Woodburn currently has126 acres of vacant, partially vacant, and redevelopable 19 employment land within the UGB. This land is available for future industrial uses, either by new employersor by existing employers expanding their businesses. Employment density for the existing UGB is anticipated at 7.6 employee-per-acre, since much of this land supply is already partially developed. The existing land supply will accommodate 958 new employees. After accounting for the industrial use accommodated on the 126 acres inside the UGB, there is a capacity need to accommodate approximately 1,752 new industrial employees through the UGB in Response to Remandexpansion. The record demonstrates that a reasonable employees-per- 20 Therefore, approximately 175 net buildable acre ratio for Woodburn is 10 employees per acre. acres are needed for new industrial capacity. The City's addition of 190 acres of industrially designated lands accounts for theindividual parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent to the City limits. 5.Residential and Public/Semi Public Land Needs On remand, Woodburn has re-examined its residential land need and supply. This revised analysis is based on the detailedparcel by parcel capacity data in Appendix A of the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). The revised acreages and capacities below reflect this more accurate information. In addition, the City has revised its projected household size to 3.1 persons 21 per household, reflecting the Woodburn-specific data in the 2000 census.Based on information in the record, the City has also determined that one-thirdof its projected park need can be met on constrained land, reducing overall public and semi-public land needsby 21 net 19 Rec. Item 10,p. 1390(UGB Justification Report, p. 22). 20 Rec. Item 10,p. 1278, Table 1 (ECONorthwest memorandum of October 20, 2003, p. 2). 21 Rec. Item 10,p. 1396 (UGB Justification Report, p. 28 fn 22.);Also Rec. Item No. 3 pp. 653-665 (See also DLCD letter dated April 21, 2004 stating, “The household size projection used by the consultant \[2.9\] is not predicated on a factual basis, but on national trends that do not accurately describe the conditions in Woodburn.”) Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 14 134 22 buildable acres. The UGB adopted on remand will have a de minimusoneacre surplus of residential land. Table 1 identifies vacant, partially vacant and infill residential lands within the exiting UGB as well as areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB to meet residential needs. There are 681 gross acres and 466 net buildable acres available to meet residential needs through the year 2020 in the existing UGB. Expansion areas total 406 gross acres or 276 net buildable acres available to meet future needs; totaling 742 net buildable acres, both within the existing UGB and proposed UGB expansion area. Table 1 - Vacant Residential Areas (Existing residential areas within the existing UGB and lands proposed in the UGB expansion) Residential Areas Gross AcresNet Buildable Acres Existing UGB (Vacant, partially 681466 23 vacant, & infill) Southwest (Parr Rd) Residential 151119 24 Expansion Area North Residential Expansion 7937 25 Area NW (Butteville Rd) Expansion 155112.5 26 Area SE Expansion Area(Residential 217.5 27 Portion) TOTALS1,087742 Calculation of Need 22 Rec. Item 10, p. 1402 (UGB Justification Report, p. 34).Woodburn has an 86 acre surplus of “Natural Areas” thatcan partially meet park needs. 23 Rec. Item 10, pp.1179-1187 (Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), Appendix A, Tables 11, 12 and 13). 24 Rec. Item 10, pp.1187-1188(BLI, Appendix A, Table 14). 25 Id. 26 Rec. Item 4, p. 1028 (Periodic Review (PR) and UGB amendment p. 12); Also Rec. Item 10 pp.1188-1189 for net buildable acreage (BLI, Appendix A, Table 15). 27 Rec. Item 4, p. 1028. (PR and UGB amendment p. 12); Also Rec. Item 10 p. 1408 for net buildable acreage (UGB Justification Report, p. 40). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 15 135 Table 2 projects both population and housing needs through 2020. Woodburn is projected to grow by approximately 14,059 over the planning period, resulting in the need for 4,647needed housing units, or 2,788 single family housing units and1,859 multi-family housing units. Table 2- Projected Population and Housing Needs 2000 - 2020 PopulationInstitutionalNetHousehold Needed Vacancy Total Single Multi- 29 IncreasePopulationPopulation SizeDwelling RateDU’sFamily Family 2830 (2000-2020)Units (5%)Needed(60%) (40%) 3132 (DUs)DU’s DU’s 14,05933713,7223.144262214,6472,7881,859 DU The UGB Justification Report identified the need for 210net buildable acres of Public and Semi-Public (P/SP) lands, intended to accommodate schools, parks, religious institutions, 33 etc.The UGB Justification Report further indicated that P/SP needs are typically met on 34 residentially designated land because the uses typically serve local residents. Evidence in the record indicates that some park needs can be met on unbuildable (flood plain, wetlands, etc.) 35 lands. Table 3 reduces the amount of buildable land needed for parks by on-thirdto 42 net buildable acres, a reduction of 21 acres, to account for the partial accommodation of park needs on unbuildable land. This results in a total of 189 net buildable acres needed to accommodate P/SP uses. Table 3 - Public and Semi-Public Land Needs From UGB Justification Report Revised Public,Semi-Public Need (net buildable acres) (net buildable acres) Schools108108 Parks6342 Institutional1111 28 Rec. Item 10, p. 1387(UGB Justification Report, p. 19). 29 Rec. Item 10, p. 1396(UGB Justification Report, p. 28). 30 Id. 31 Rec. Item 10, p. 1382. (UGB Justification Report, p. 14). 32 Id. 33 Rec. Item 10, p. 1402 (UGB Justification Report, p. 34). 34 Id. 35 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1400 - 1401(UGBJustification Report, pp. 32-33). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 16 136 Religious2828 Total210189 Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 17 137 Calculation of How Need Will Be Met The existing UGB can accommodate a total of 3,041 low density residential (LDR) and medium density residential (MDR) dwelling units if every parcel develops at maximum 36 New development will necessarily occur at between 80percentand 100 percent of capacity. maximum allowable density; this analysis assumes a mid-range average of 90 percent. Table 4 identifies the LDR and Nodal LDR capacity within the existing UGB and proposed expansion areas. They can accommodate a total of 3224 dwelling units at 90percent 37 of maximum allowable density. Table 4 - Meeting the need for 2788 LDR dwelling units NeedExisting UGB NW North Total LDR Surplus in Surplus capacity (90% expansion Expansion supply in dwelling available for Area of maximum capacityexisting units(supply public and semi- (90% of (90% of capacity of UGB & minus need)public uses in net 3,041 du in maximum maximum NW & N buildable acres BLI Appendix capacity of capacity of expansion A, Tables 11, 293 du in BLI 248 du in BLI areas 12, 13)Appendix A, Appendix A, Table 15)Table 14) LDR2,788 1,364 du264 du223 du3,224-5.5 du per net dwelling 2,788=436 acre Nodal units (du)surplus436/5.5=79 LDR1,373 du Total2,737 du264 du223 du 3,224 du436 (DU 79 net buildable Surplus)acre surplus 38 Notes: LDR land in the existing UGB is projected at 5.5 dwelling units per net buildable acre.The 436 surplus dwelling unit capacity divided by the assumed density of 5.5 units per net acre in theUGB Justification Report yields a surplus of 79acres available for public and semi-public uses. It is assumed that public andsemi-public uses will locate on LDR-zoned land in the existing UGB and the north expansion area, rather than in the highly parcelized Butteville Road exception area. It is unlikely that all new development will occur at 100 percent of maximum allowable capacity. On the other hand, Woodburn has adopted measures requiring new development to achieve at least 80 percent of allowable density. It is also unlikely that development will occur at 80 percent that is the minimum that is legally allowable. So new development will occur at between 80 percent and 100 percent of maximum allowable density. 90 percent is a reasonable mid-range average. It does not mean Woodburn is committing to hit 90 percent in every development. Some development will occur at over 90 percent of allowed density and some will be less. 36 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1179-1187 (BLI, Appendix A Parcel Tables, including: Table 11 “Vacant Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”, Table 12 “Infill Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”, and Table 13 “Partially Vacant Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”). 37 Rec Item 10, pp. 1179-1187 (BLI, Appendix A Parcel Tables, including: Table 11 “Vacant Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”, Table 12 “Infill Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”, and Table 13 “Partially Vacant Residential Taxlots- Existing UGB”). 38 Rec. Item 10, p. 1409(UGB Justification Report, p. 41). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 18 138 After meeting the need for 2,788 LDR dwelling units there is a surplus of 79 net buildable acres to meet public and semi-public land needs within the existing UGB and the North expansion area. Table 5 identifies the MDR and Nodal MDR capacity within the existing UGB and proposed expansion areas at 90 percent of maximum allowable density. These areas can accommodate the needed 1,859 MDR dwelling units with a surplus of 111 net buildable acres available to meet P/SP needs. Table 5 - Meeting the need for 1859 MDR dwelling units NeedExisting UGB New SE Total MDR Deficit to Net buildable Surplus available capacity (90% DDC Expansion supply in be met in acres needed for public and of maximum &Area (from existing SW (Parr in SW semi-public uses capacity of NNC UGB UGB & SE Rd Nodal) expansion area in net buildable 1,734 du in zones Justification expansion expansion at assumed acres. BLI Appendix Report, p. area & new Area Nodal MDR A, Tables 11, 40)DDC & density of 18 12, 13) NNC zonesunits/net 39 acre. MDR1,859 1,123 du50 du105 du(1,859 (144du (SW expansion dwelling needed divided by area has 119net units (du)units assumed buildable acres. Nodal 437 duminus density of 18 119 net acres MDRsupply of units/ net acre)minus 8 net acres 1,715) needed for housing units yields a surplus of 111 net acres) Total1,560 du50 du105 du1,715 du144 du8 netacres111 net (deficit)buildable acre surplus Notes: DDC andNNC zones are new mixed use zones in two commercial areas that will accommodate 50 dwelling units with no residential See land. UGB Justification Report, page41. After accommodating needed housing, Table 6 demonstrates that theUGB adopted on remand has a total of 190 net buildable acres (79 acres plus 111 acres) available to meet the need for 189 net buildable acres for Public and Semi-Public uses. 39 Rec Item 10, p. 1409 (UGB Justification Report, p. 41. 143 units ÷ 18 units/net acre = 44.4 net acrestotal rounded.) Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 19 139 Table 6 - Meeting Public and Semi-Public Needs Surplus School Park Institutional Religious Natural Government Total Remaining Residential NeedNeedNeedNeedNeed Need AcresP/SP Surplus AcresAcresAcresAcresAcres land before Areas Residential meeting P, SP (surplus)NeededLand needs Acres (79+111=190) 190108421128001891 Notes: P/SP lands to be met on surplus residential buildable acres (190) and constrained lands - page 33 Woodburn UGB Justification Report. 1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan update identified 129 constrained (unbuildable) riparian, wetland, and floodplain acres in Woodburn UGB available to meet this generalized need – Woodburn UGB Justification Report – page 33. C.Alternative Sites Analysis To summarize, Woodburn needs to accommodate the following residential and industrial needs through a UGB expansion: •Commercial. In addition to existing capacity within the UGB, Woodburn will add 23 acres for non-industrial employment land as identified in the UGB Justification Report. •Industrial. Woodburn needs additional capacity to accommodate approximately 1,752 new industrial employees. The record demonstrates that a reasonable 40 Therefore, employee per acre ratio for Woodburn is 10 employees per acre. approximately 175 net buildable acres are needed for new industrial capacity. The City's addition of 190 acres industrially designated lands accounts for the individual parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent to City limits. •Residential. Woodburn needs additional capacity to accommodate approximately 300 dwelling units. In addition to housing, Woodburn projects a need for approximately 189 net buildable acres of residential land for public and semi-public uses. As described in Section III, if some or all of the identified need cannot be accommodated inside the UGB, Woodburn must then move to the “alternatives analysis” step: “application of 40 Rec. Item 10, p. 1278, Table 1 (ECONorthwest memorandum of October 20, 2003, p. 2). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 20 140 ORS 197.298 (1) and (3)together with Goal 14, to locate and justify inclusion of land to fill that quantified need.” McMinnville, 244 Or App at 257. This starts with the identification of buildable land contiguous to the UGB. Id. at 262. Woodburn examined all the lands contiguous to and within approximately one-half mile of the existing UGB. It did so by dividing the adjacent lands into eightstudy areas, defined based on their geographical integrity and potential transportation connectivity to the existing urbanized 41 area and other existing routes.As described in the UGB Justification Report, every area was evaluated based on: size, amount of buildable land, and amount of constrained land; soil classification; relationship to surrounding agricultural areas; proximity and connections to existing or planned transportation routes and utilities and general serviceability; relationship to existing urban area; and the economic, environmental, social, and energy consequences of 42 urbanizing the land. In selecting where to expand the UGB from amongst the studied areas, Woodburn must follow the priority statute, ORS 197.298,sequentially. City ofWest Linn, 201 Or App 419, 440 (2005); D.S.Parklane Development, Inc. v Metro, 165 Or App 1, 20-21 (2000). Therefore, Woodburn must look first to any lands designated as urban reserves. Because the URA adopted with this decision is not an acknowledged urban reserve for purpose of this 43 decision, there are no urban reserves around Woodburn. The City must then look to “second priority” lands - those designated as exception areas. Woodburn identified four exception areas within the contiguous study areas it examined. Two of those areas –the Butteville Road exception area and the Southeast exception are included in the UGB in Response to Remand expansion. 41 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1413-1447(UGB Justification Report, pp. 45-79).See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 42 Id. 43 “The urban reserves designated by this decision were not adopted and in place prior to this decision, and thus are not available for analysis or selection in this UGB decision.” Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 21 141 44 The Butteville Road exception areacontains 155 gross acres, which Woodburn intends to plan for residential use and zone for low density residential. The remaining buildable lands 45 can accommodate 293 additional dwelling units.The residential portion of the Southeast 46 exception areacontains 7.5 acres of vacant residential land that will be planned residential and zoned for medium density residential, at a projected density of 14 units/net buildable acre. The Southeast exception area can thus accommodate 105 additional dwelling units. The Northeast Exception Area includes MacLaren Youth Correctional Facilitywhich is owned by the State and operated as a youth correctional facility. Given the use and ownership 47 the properties are not considered for redevelopment. Woodburn evaluated a fourth exception area, the Carl Road area, located northeast of the current UGB. However, this area has no development potential to meet the needs of the City within the relevant time period. The Carl Road area “has no remaining development 4849 capacity,”and does not contain land that is “usable for urban purposes.” Because this area cannot reasonably accommodate identified land needs and because it would be a significant unbuffered intrusion into surrounding agricultural land, it has been excluded from the UGB expansion. Therefore, the exception areas together can accommodate an additional 398 dwelling units. Because there is a remaining need for both residential land and industrial land after including the exception areas in the UGB, Woodburn must next look to the third category of “marginal” lands, none of which exists in Marion County. Therefore, Woodburn must turn to the “fourth priority” lands –those designated for agriculture or forestry. In selecting from among agricultural lands, higher priority for inclusion in the UGB must be given to those lands of lower productive capability as measured by soil classification. ORS 197.298 (2). As described in Section III, if the amount of land within a category exceeds the need, then the jurisdiction must 44 Rec Item 10, p. 1406 (UGB Justification Report, p. 38). 45 Rec Item 10, p.1188-1189 (BLI, Appendix A, Table 15). 46 Rec Item 10, p. 1408 (UGB Justification Report, p. 40). 47 Id. 48 Rec Item 10, p. 1431 (UGB Justification Report, p. 63). 49 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 22 142 use the boundary location factors of Goal 14,“consistent with ORS 197.298,” to choose among those “like” lands. A decision to include or exclude land from a UGB must be based on a balancing of all these factors, rather than reliance on any one factor. Parklane, 165 Or App at 25; 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Metro (Ryland Homes), 174 Or App 406, 409-10 (2001). Woodburn must accommodate approximately 144 dwelling units on residential expansion land outside the existing UGB and outside of the exception areas included in this expansion. These 144 units should be the more-affordable, higher-density types. Woodburnalso has a need for approximately 175 net buildable acresof industrial land. The City's addition of 190 acres of industrially designated lands accounts for the individual parcel sizes and their location immediately adjacent to City limits. The remaining portions of the eightstudy areas are very similar in terms of their soil classifications; Class II soils predominate in all areas. Three of the areas – Study Areas 4, 5, and 50 The City therefore ranks these three areas last 6 – contain the largest amount of Class II soils. in priority amongst the farm land alternative areas, due to the following factors: • As described in the Goal 9 Findings in section V.A., agriculture is the number one industry in Marion County; it is the largest employment sector in Woodburn; and the employment growth rate for agriculture related businesses in Woodburn far exceeds the state employment growth rate. High quality farm land is essential to the health of this industry, and the City chooses to protect it, like any other valuable industrial land. • These three Study Areas –4, 5, and 6 –are more distant from some of the City’s primary transportation corridors that serve urban industrial uses (I-5, the Highway 214 interchange; planned roadway extensions at Stacy Allison Drive and Evergreen Road). They are proximate to the Highway 99E corridor, which runs 50 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15).See map at Attachment2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 23 143 through the eastern portion of the City and serves major parts of Marion County farm land. • There are suitable, buildable lands in the remaining studyareas with larger amounts of lesser quality soils. Study Areas 1, 3, and 6 contain exception areas that the City has already evaluated and determined to include (Butteville Road area in Study Area 1 and Southeast area in Study Area 6) or exclude (Carl Road area and MacLaren area in Study Area 3). As described in the UGB Justification Report and supporting documents, Woodburn evaluated the remaining exception areas under the Goal 14 Locational factors: (1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs; (2) Orderly andeconomic provision of public facilities and services; (3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and (4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB. Following is a brief summary of the performance of each of the remaining Study Areas - 1, 2, 7, and 8 - under the Goal 14 factors, based on the UGB Justification Report and supporting 51 documents incorporated into it. Study Area 1 • The area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing urbanized portions of Woodburn. 52 • The area falls within the middle range of cost on serviceability. 51 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1422-1426 (UGB Justification Report pp. 54-58). 52 Id., p. 55, 58; Rec. Item 10 at 1423, 1426. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 24 144 53 • The northern portion of Study Area 1contains Class I agricultural soils. Intensive crops producing high value products are grown in this area, including 54 hops and berries. Urbanizing this land would have an adverse impact on the agricultural economy of the state and county. • Due to a lack of human or natural boundaries, urbanization of the northern portion of Study Area 1 would be an urban encroachment, with no logical boundary, into a highly productive and intact farming area. This could cause conflicts between common farming practices in the area (pesticide spray, aerial spraying, and 24- hour machinery operations) and the movement of farm equipment, and urban uses such as housing or industrial. Woodburn included the exception area portion of Study Area 1 in the UGB, but has determined that based on balancing the Goal 14 factors, the remaining portion of Study Area 1 should be excluded. Recognizing the importance of the agricultural industry to the city, county, 55 and state,the City desires to protect large intact farming areas from encroachment by urbanization, and looks to reinforce natural and manmade buffers to do so. The Butteville Road exception area in the southern portion of Study Area 1 is separated from surrounding agricultural 56 uses by the Oregon Electric Railway and Highway 214.Further, the agricultural portion of Study Area 1 is bisected north to south by a riparian corridor, further limiting the urbanization 57 potential of the remaining lands. On balance, the agricultural portion of Study Area 1 ranks low for potential inclusion in the UGB. Study Area 2 • Can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing urbanized portions of Woodburn. 53 See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 54 Rec. Item 10, p. 1429 (UGB Justification Report p. 61). 55 See Section V, A, “Findings on Economic Importance of the Agricultural Industry to Woodburn and to Marion County.” 56 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1428-1429 (UGB Justification Report pp. 60-61). 57 Id., p. 61; Rec. Item 10, p. 1429. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 25 145 58 • Ranks high on serviceability for sewer, water, and stormwater. 59 • The southwestern portion of Study Area 2 includes about 79 gross acres,lying bothwest and east of Boones Ferry Road. It can be distinguished from the rest of 60 the study area because it does not contain any Class I soils.It is partially developed with the OGC (Tukwila) Golf Course and is further defined in part by a stream corridor that separates it from the highly productive farm land to the north, northwest, and northeast. The southern portion’s proximity to, and partial development with, the OGC Golf Course makes it a logical site for residential development, including parks and other public and semi-public uses. • The northern portion of Study Area 2 contains Class I soils and is an integral part 61 of the farming areas and agricultural industry to the north of Woodburn. Urbanization of the northern portions of this study area could cause severe conflicts with farming and would cause a significant loss of excellent farm land to urbanization. 62 The southern portion of Study Area 2, in the vicinity of the existing golf courseand proposed for inclusion in this UGB expansion for residential use, contains approximately 37 net 63 buildable acres.Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarizedhere, the southern portion of Study Area 2 is suitable for a UGB expansion for residential use. Study Area 3 64 • Ranks low on both serviceability and suitability for industrial use. • There is no development or service capacity in the existing Carl Road exception area, located within Study Area 3. • The study area includes a youthcorrectional facility, making urban residential use 65 unsuitable. 58 Id., p. 55, 58; Rec. Item 10 at 1423, 1426. 59 Rec Item 10, p.1187-1188 (BLI, Appendix A, Table 14). 60 See map at Attachment2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 61 Id. 62 Id. 63 Rec Item 10, pp. 1187-1188 (BLI, Appendix A, Table 14). 64 Rec. Item, 10 pp. 1423-1425 (UGB Justification Report pp. 55-57). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 26 146 • The area has poor access to the City’s transportation network and is not easily integrated into the existing urban area because of its distant location across Highway 99E, a major state highway that physically separates it from the rest of the City. 66 • Thearea has substantial riparian areas that make development challenging. Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, Study Area 3 is not as suitable for urban uses as other alternative sites within the same ORS 197.298(1) priority. Study Area 7 • The study area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing urbanized portions of Woodburn. 67 • The study area falls within the middle range of cost on serviceability. • The area is served by Parr Road and by planned extensions of Stacey Allison Drive and Evergreen Road. This planned road network and the extension of other urban services will facilitate the future long-range provision of urban services to the urban reserve area immediately to the south in a cost-effective manner. • This road network provides excellent access to I-5, to Highway 99, and to the internal portions of the City, making the site readily integrated into the existing urbanized area. In particular, the northern portion of this site is well-located relative to the transportation network for industrial use. • The Parr Road Nodal Development area, located on the eastern portion of this site, is particularly well-suitedfor residential use, because it can be integrated into both the existing neighborhood that is inside the UGB and the planned nodal development area within the existing UGB. The residentially designated area surround two recently constructed schools.TheCity’s Nodal Development plan 65 Id., pp. 64-65; Rec. Item 10, pp. 1432-1433. 66 Id., p. 65; Rec. Item 10, p. 1433. 67 Id., pp. 55, 58; Rec. Item 10 at 1423, 1426. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 27 147 requires that the area be developed with safe routes to schools and a sidewalk and bicycle network to ensure safe access to neighborhood stores and services. Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarizedhere, the northern portion of Study Area 7 is suitable for a UGB expansion for industrial use, and the Parr Road Nodal Development Area in the eastern portion of Study Area 7 is suitable for residential use. The northern portion 68 provides 65 net buildable acres for industrial use.The Parr Road Nodal Development Area contains sufficient land in the appropriate location to meet the land need for the 144 MDR units, plus approximately 111 net buildable acres for public and semi-public land needs. Study Area 8 69 Study Area 8 is comprised of approximately 755 gross acres. Butteville Road runs north-south through the study area and divides it into two distinct blocks. 130 gross acres lie east 7071 of Butteville Road. These 130 gross acres include 110 net buildable acres in threetax lots. This eastern portion is adjacent to the existing urban growth boundary and City limits and does 72 not contain any Class I soils. In contrast, the larger, more distant area west of Butteville Road 73 contains a significant block of Class I soils. Land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which is in Study Area 8 and some of which is to the west of it, consists primarily of Class I and 74 IIsoils.The soils are capable of growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, 75 hops, orchards, hay, vegetables, grass seed, and more.This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of an agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west. 68 Rec. Item 10, p. 1450(UGB Justification Report, p. 82). 69 Rec Item10, p. 1414 (UGB Justification Report, p. 46). 70 Rec. Item 10, p. 1416(UGB Justification Report, p. 48). 71 Rec. Item 10, p. 1450(UGB Justification Report, p. 82). 72 Rec Item 10, p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report, p. 50). See map at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 73 Rec Item 10, p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report, p. 50). 74 Rec Item 11, p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils- Non-Irrigated; Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map, Eight Study Areas – Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. Seemap at Attachment 2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 75 Rec Item 10, pp.1442-1444 (UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 28 148 • The study area can efficiently accommodate the identified land needs, because it contains relatively flat land; the soils are well-drained; and it is in proximity to the existing urbanized portions of Woodburn. • The area ranks highest among the study areas on serviceability. • Butteville Road serves as a significant manmade buffer between the land to the east and the large expanse of farm land to the west. Therefore, potential conflicts between urban uses to the east of Butteville Roadand farm practices to the west of the road can be minimized. • The 130 acres east of Butteville Road are separated from the large farming areas to the west, south, and north by the manmade buffers of Butteville Road, the I-5 freeway, Highway 214, and the Butteville Road exception area.This allows the 130 acre area to be developed as a unified industrial site, for one or a few industrial users. It also allows the site to be protected from conflicting uses on and near the site. • The 130 acres east of Butteville Road are connected to the urbanized portion of Woodburn via existing access to the Highway214 interchange, which will provide excellent freeway access to freight trucks. Balancing the Goal 14 factors as summarized here, the eastern portion of Study Area 8, to the east of Butteville Road, is suitable for a UGB expansion for industrial use. This is conditioned coupled with measures to: • Provide a legal boundary at Butteville Road, beyond which the UGB will not be expanded for at least 20 years. See Attachment 4. • Plan and zone the site for industrial use only, the City has accomplished this through the SWIR overlay zone which establishes minimum lot sizes throughout the industrial area and limits the types of uses. The industrial land proposed to be brought into the UGB in this decision, which totals approximately 190 acres in Study Areas 7 and 8, meets the identified industrial land need. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 29 149 V.URBAN RESERVE AREA Pursuant to ORS 195.145(a) and OAR chapter 660, division 21, and in coordination with Marion County, Woodburn designates approximately 230 acres to the southwest of the UGBfor This will be the first area to which the City expands its UGB in the future, if a need for a URA. 76 a UGB expansion is demonstrated. The City intends to establish this URAto meet the demand for land beyond that time period of the UGBwhich is from 2000-2020. The City willadopt findings specifying the particular number of years over which the designated URA isintended to provide a supply of land. Division 21 authorizes cities toidentify an amount of land estimated to be at least a 10-year supply and no more than a 30-year supply of developable land beyond the 20-year time frame The City is establishing a URA out to year 2031, carrying forward used to establish the UGB. 77 some assumptions of the current UGB and modifying others to reflect likely future development trends. Future residential densities of population growthcan be estimated by application of a simple method. In Table 7, assumptions regarding the single- and multi-family residential mix, dwelling unit density, and persons per household are presumed to carry forward from the established UGB into the planning period for the URA. Using a straightforward method, an estimate of the persons per net acre of residential land is made. That net acre estimate is converted to gross acres applying a weighted average of 60percentsingle-family residential and 40percentmulti-family residential. Since the net to gross conversion factors used to establish the existing UGB primarily address needed roadways (public lands are addressed separately) for the URAplanning period, the 25percentsafe harbor net to gross conversion factor is used instead. This provides a means to estimate land need (both roadway and public lands) associated with residential land. The table concludes that, during the URAplanning period, residential densities will be approximately 20.1 persons per gross acre. 76 See Attachment3: Urban Reserve Map. 77 OAR 660-021-0030. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 30 150 Table 7 – Future Residential Density Average Percent New Residents Homes in Persons per per Gross Single/Multi Dwelling Net AcreNet to Gross Persons Acre Family Units/Net Persons/ (5.5 * 3.1 and Conversion per Gross 78798081 AnalysisDesignationsAcreHousehold12 * 3.1)FactorAcre Single Family Residential60%5.53.117.125%13.6 Multi- Family Residential40%12.03.137.225%29.8 Weighted Averages SFR/MFR25.125%20.1 Next, the City must estimate its population growth during the URAperiod. Applying the adopted growth rate (2.80 percent aagr) for the 2020 UGB population (34,919) yields a population of over 46,000 by the year 2030, the earliest possible year for the URA planning period. Because this number is so large in relation tothe 2020 City population, it would not be reasonable to plan for it in the existing process. Therefore, the City Council looks to and takes official notice of thecoordinated population number already prepared by Marion County for 82 The average annual growth rate associated with that forecast is 2.04percent. 2030: 37,216. This yields a more reasonable population estimate that can be planned for in this current process. Table 8 shows the population between 2030 and 2035 applying the coordinated average annual growth rate for each year’s growth. The persons per gross acre calculated from Table 7 is applied to the population increase during the URAplanning period to determine an estimate of the gross acres of residential land needed in each year 2030-2035. 78 Rec Item 10, p. 1410 (UGB Justification Report, p. 42). 79 Id., p. 43. 80 2000 Census. 81 Safe harbor assumption of 25 percent. 82 Marion County Coordinated 2030 Population Forecast. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 31 151 Table 8 - Residential Land Need Population (Grows People Added at 2.04%average Since 2020 annual growth Population of Persons per Gross Residential Gross 838485 Yearrate)34,919AcreAcres Needed 203037,216229720.1114 203137,975305620.1152 203238,750383120.1191 203339,540462120.1230 203440,347542820.1270 203541,170625120.1311 Next, the City must determine the amount of needed employment land during the URA planning period. The City will estimate the employees per gross acre in a simple method similar to the residential land need. In Table 9, an analysis is made of the number of employees assumed at the end of the UGB planning period and the number of acres existing or added to accommodate that need. It is assumed that moving forward into the URA planningperiod, the same mix of commercial and industrial jobs will remain and the same net to gross conversion factors will apply. In Table 9, the analysis uses a weighted average of the mix between commercial and industrial jobs, estimating that employment land will contain, on average 17.4 employees per gross acre. Table 9 - Future Employment Densities Average Percent Employees Jobs Employees Net Acres Net Net to per Gross Commercial Added Available Acres Total Gross Employees 2000-Existing Added EmployeesConversion Acre and Net per Gross 8687 AnalysisIndustrial2020UGBto UGBAcresNet AcreFactorsAcre 8889 Commercial68%56641082313143.210%39.3 83 Id. 84 Rec Item 10, p. 1387 (UGB Justification Report, p. 19). 85 From Table 7(in this report). 86 Rec Item 3 p. 167-185 (ECONorthwest memorandum, April 29, 2002, p. 18 (public and office employees included with commercial for this analysis). 87 BLI p. 6. 88 Rec. Item 10, p. 1390 (UGB Justification Report, p. 22-23). 89 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 32 152 9091 Industrial32%27101261753019.015%7.8 Totals100%837423419843219.412%17.4 To determine the number of employment acres needed, the residential population estimate is carried over from Table 8 and the population to jobs ratio determinedin the UGB Justification Report is assumed to continue during the URA planningperiod. The number of employees added since 2020, the end of the UGB planning period, is calculated and, using the estimate of the number of employees per gross acres determined in Table 9, a demand for employment land is identified for during the URA period. Table 10 - Employment Land Need Employees Population Added since Employees Employment to Jobs 2020 Jobs per Gross Gross Acres 929394 YearPopulationRatioEmployees18,762AcreNeeded 203037,2161.919,58782517.447 203137,9751.919,987122517.470 203238,7501.920,395163317.494 203339,5401.920,811204917.4118 2034 40,347 1.9 21,235 2473 17.4 142 2035 41,170 1.9 21,668 2906 17.4 167 Because URAs,outside of the Portland Metropolitan planning area, are not permitted to identify land separately for a particular type of land (e.g.,residential, employment or public), the land needs for residential and employment land, calculated separately in the tables above, are combined into one single land need in Table 11. Public land needs, including roadways, are included within each category of residential and employment land through the use of the net to gross conversion factors in Tables 7 and 9. 90 Rec. Item 10,p. 1390 (UGB Justification Report, p. 22). 91 Rec. Item 10, p. 1388 (UGB Justification Report, p. 20). 92 Id., p. 20. 93 Id., pp. 21-22. 94 From Table 9(in this report). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 33 153 Consistent with the “Framework for Mediation Settlement Agreement” dated May 2015, the City is establishing a 230-acre URA. According to Table 11, this will provide an 11-year land supply. Table 11 - Urban Reserve Land Need Residential Employment Gross Acres Gross Acres Total Gross YearNeededNeededAcres Needed 203011447162 203115270222 Urban Reserve Alternative Site Analysis Woodburn is surrounded by high value farm lands and the City carefully considered how best to expand its future City limits, while minimizing impacts to these valuable lands. Woodburn evaluated potential expansion in light of ORS 197.298 (2) to determine which areas 95 contain lower-quality soils than others.The URAdesignation minimized the impacts of growth on the surrounding agricultural lands. The portion of Study Area 7, immediately south and adjacent to the adopted UGB, totals 9697 230 gross acres or 206net acres,and is predominantly Class III soils.Parcels are large, ranging from 10 –55 acres in size. Development in the lesser soil class in Study Area 7 requires 98 inclusion of some Class II soils to maximize efficiency of areas with the lesser soil quality. Other areas considered for urban reserve are predominantly Class II soils. Evaluating alternative areas for possible designation as Urban Reserve Area (URA) found that all areas are relatively flat and have well-drained soils that can accommodate urban 95 Rec. Item 10, p. 1416-1417 (UGB Justification Report p. 49-50). 96 Rec. Item 10, p.1190-1192 (Appendix A of the Building Lands Inventory,Tables 17 and 21).The identified parcels of land contain 206 net acres. Using the conversion factor from Table 9 of 12 percent, 206 net acres is the equivalent of 230 gross acres. This is approximately 3.6 percent more land than the 222 acres identifiedas needed for the urban reserve in 2031. 97 See map at Attachment2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 98 Rec. Item 10, p. 1416-1417 (UGB Justification Report p. 48-49). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 34 154 99 development.The portion of Study Area 7 designated as urban reserve is serviceable at 100 reasonable costs.It has good access to transportation facilities and will help solve long-term 101 transportation needs.From a social and economic prospective, designation of this land as 102 Urban Reserve minimizes the impact to adjacent farm lands. The urban reserve is bisected by a planned southern arterial that will link to Butteville 103 Road andcan be efficiently served by public services.Urban uses can be made compatible 104 and are less sensitive to nearby agricultural practicesthrough development standards. VI.UGB EXPANSIONLIMITS 105 As described in this decision’s findings for Goal 3and Goal 9,agriculture is the number oneindustry in Marion County, and is among the top industries in Woodburn. Moreover, it is growing in value and both the City and County desire to ensurethat the land base and infrastructure on which the agricultural industry depends is protected to support that growth. The City and County further recognize that urbanization near farmland has an adverse “spillover” impact on surrounding farms and agricultural activities. These conflicts include urban traffic congestion in farming areas; vandalism, theft, and trespassing; complaints about common farm practices, such as night-time harvesting; and unwarranted increases in the price of 106 farmland due to land speculation where the integrity of the UGBis in question. Without adequate buffers, measures to reduce conflicts, and long-term certainty for those farming near the UGB, the agricultural industry in the region and in the state will be significantly 107 adversely impacted beyond simply the land that is converted from farm to urban uses.As 99 Rec. Item 10, p. 1422 (UGB Justification Report p. 54). 100 Rec. Item 10, p. 1423 (UGB Justification Report p. 55). 101 Rec. Item 10, p. 1425 (UGB Justification Report p. 57). 102 Rec. Item 10, p. 1428(UGB Justification Report p. 60). 103 Rec. Item 10, p. 1438 (UGB Justification Report p. 70). 104 Rec. Item 10, p. 1447 (UGB Justification Report p. 79). 105 Data from Oregon Departmentof Agriculture, included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug. 23, 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 101. 106 Rec. Item 6, p. 170. 107 Rec. Vol. 5, p. 843: Oregon Department of Agriculture letter to Woodburn, March 19, 2004. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 35 155 farm land is converted to non-farm uses or compromised because of conflicts, the region will lose its ancillary industries, which employ many –including processors, farm equipment dealers, professional service providers, and the like. This will cause a particularly adverse economic 108 downturn in the local Woodburn economy. In addition, the City wishes to conserve its financial resources by focusing infrastructure investment inside the existing UGB and through limited expansion of the UGB, if necessary. In particular, the areas to the north and northeast of the current City UGB and to the west of Butteville Road NE consist of the highest quality soils and are part of larger and very 109 productive agricultural regions. The area north of the current UGB, known as Study Area 2, consists primarily of Class I 110 and IIsoils, the most productive and highest capability soils that exist. Current agricultural 111 uses include filberts (a high value crop), grass seed, orchards, and grain.The soils are also 112 suitable for hops, vegetables, berries, and other crops. The farming units are large, and are 113 part of a larger agricultural area of excellent soils sweeping to the north and northeast. Similarly, the land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which is in Study Area 8 and 114 some of which is to the west of it, consists primarily of Class I and IIsoils.Ninety-nine 115 percent of the agricultural land in Study Area 8 is High-Value farmland.The soils are capable of growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, hops, orchards, hay, vegetables, 108 Rec. Item 6, p. 170: Carl family/Pudding River Ranch letter to Woodburn, August 23, 2006. 109 Rec. Vol. 5, p. 843: Oregon Department of Agriculture letter to Woodburn, March 19, 2004. 110 Rec Item 11 p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils- Non-Irrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map, Eight Study Areas – Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Areaand Soils Capability Class Map. 111 Rec. Item 10, p. 1430(UGB Justification Report, pp. 61-62). 112 Rec. Item 10, p. 1441 - 1446 (Id., pp. 73-76 and Table 18). 113 Rec Item 11, p. 1485 Map, Woodburn Soils- Non-Irrigated;Rec Item 3 p. 811 Map, Eight Study Areas – Woodburn-Natural resources and Soil Capability Classes. See map at Attachment 2: Study Areaand Soils Capability Class Map. 114 Id. 115 Rec. Item 10, p. 1255(Technical Report 3, “Potential UGB ExpansionArea Analysis, November 2002. p. 9 Table 4b). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 36 156 116 grass seed, and more.This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of an agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west. The land northeast of the City and to the east of 99E is in Study Area 3. The agricultural 117 Most of the agricultural land in Study soils in Study Area 3 are primarily Class II (prime). 118 Area 3 is high-value farmland.These soils are suitable for the wide range of crops described 119 above. The MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility and a smallfully developed manufactured home park, are also within StudyArea 3. “The Northeast Rural Residential (Carl Road) area has 120 no remaining development capacity,”and this exception area does not contain land that is usable for urban purposes. Its inclusion within the UGB “would also be a significant unbuffered 121 intrusion into surrounding agricultural land.” There is no urban land or infrastructure planning need to bring these two areas into the UGB. Butteville Road NE on the west, and Highway 99E and the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility in the northeast, provide substantial manmade structures that, with management, can provide fairly effective buffers between urban uses and agricultural uses, and can help to minimize conflicts between the two. The City has no intention or need to urbanize beyond these two roadways. Therefore, the City and County will adoptmeasures to minimize the impacts of urbanization at the “edge,” to reduce farm and non-farm conflicts, and to not encourage economic speculation on farm land. These measures are consistent with and serve to fulfill the City’s and County’s existing obligations under theCoordination Agreementand the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. 116 Rec. Item 10, p. 1442 - 1446(UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). 117 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15) and Rec. Item 10 p. 1442 (UGB Justification Report, p. 74, Table 18). 118 Rec. Item 10, p. 1442 - 1446UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). 119 Id. 120 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418 (UGB Justification Report, p. 40). 121 Rec. Item 10, p. 1441 - 1447(UGB Justification Report, pp. 73-79). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 37 157 1. The City of Woodburn and Marion County will adopt the following language into the Coordination Agreement: 122 “For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and acknowledged,neither the City nor County will seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban growth boundary in the following areas: • West of the portion of Butteville Road NE depicted in Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map. • Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as depicted in Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map. 2. The City of Woodburn, as part of its urban growth boundary decision, will adoptthe following language into its Comprehensive Plan policies addressing Goals 9 and 14: “For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and acknowledged,123the City shall not seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban growth boundary in the following areas: • West of the portion of Butteville Road NE depicted onAttachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map. • Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as depicted on Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map. 3. The City of Woodburn, as part of its UGBdecision, will adoptthe following language into its Comprehensive Plan policies addressing Goals 9, 12, and 14. Both the City and Marion County will adopt the following language into the Coordination Agreement: 122 This UGB decision is not final and acknowledged until all appeals and appeal time periods have been exhausted or passed. 123 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 38 158 “Woodburn intends the UGB expansion area known as the Southwest Industrial Reserve, comprising approximately 190acres,located east of Butteville Roadand north of Parr Road, to be used for larger industrial users.Specific lot size standards shall be established limiting the size and number of future lots for these properties. Woodburn recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both agricultural practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as part of their 124 regular business practice.Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the west of Butteville RoadNE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the region’s 125 agricultural industry.Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural uses and to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest Industrial Reserve and other urban uses, the City and County will: • Ensure that the design of and any improvements to the portion of Butteville Road NE serving the Southwest Industrial Reservenot encourage any urban traffic unrelated to the industrial use in the immediate areaand unrelated to agricultural uses west of Butteville Road. • As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial Reserve consideration shall be given to methods to mitigate impacts from development and adjacent agricultural activities this can include buffers or increased setbacks along Butteville Road, provide that any buffers needed to reduce conflicts between the industrial uses and agricultural activity west of Butteville RoadNE are located inside the UGB. 4. The City of Woodburn, aspart of its UGB decision, further recognizes that Highway 99E and the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility provide a substantial buffer between urban uses and agricultural lands to the northeast. Both the City and Marion County will adopt the following language into the Coordination Agreement: 124 Rec. Item 10, p. 1445 (UGB Justification Report, p. 77). 125 SeeVII, P Other Goal and Statutory Findings herein. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 39 159 “Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the east of Highway 99E and northeast of the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the 126 agricultural industry.” VII.OTHER GOAL AND STATUTORY FINDINGS A.Applicable Goals After consideration of the existing record on remand, the City Council finds that the Statewide Planning Goals applicable to this land use decision are as follows: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal 3: Agricultural Lands Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 8: Recreational Needs Goal 9: Economic Development Goal 10: Housing Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Goal 12: Transportation Goal 13: Energy Conservation Goal 14: Urbanization B.Applicable Law 127 The City adopted its UGB amendment, on November 2, 2005and the substantive law that applied on that date remains applicable to this remand proceeding. LCDC’s current rule 126 Id. 127 Rec. Item 10, p. 1372 (UGB Justification Report, October 2005, p. 4). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 40 160 implementing Goal 9 was adopted on December 1, 2005 and consequently does not apply. The prior division 9 rules, OAR chapter 660, division 9 (2005), are applicable. The amendments to Goal 14 ("the new Goal 14”) were adopted on April 28, 2005, with a delayed effective date unless a local government elected to apply the new goal. The City elected to apply the new Goal 14 when it adopted itsUGB amendment and the "new" Goal 14 is applicable. However, OAR chapter 660, division 24 (“the Goal 14 rule”) was adopted on October 19, 2006, but did not become effective until April 2007. Since the City adopted its UGB amendment on November 2, 2005, almost a year before the date that OAR chapter 660, division 24 was filed, division 24 rules are not applicable. C.Goal 1: Citizen Involvement - OAR 660-015-0000(1) The intent of Goal 1 is to ensure that citizens have meaningful opportunities to participate in land use planning decisions. As stated in the Goal, the purpose is to develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has an acknowledged citizen involvementprogram and the City Council finds that nothing in this land use decision amends or affects that program, and no provisions adopted herein are inconsistent with that program. Goal 1 has five stated objectives that are relevant to the UGB boundary amendment: Citizen Involvement -- To provide for widespread citizen involvement. Communication --To assure effective two-way communication with citizens. Citizen Influence --To provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Technical Information --To assure that technical information is available in an understandable form. Feedback Mechanisms --To assure that citizens will receive a response from policy-makers. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 41 161 In relation to Goal 1: Citizen Involvement, the City Council finds, based on the existing record, that the City utilized its acknowledged citizen involvement program to engage in an 128 extensive public outreach efforts regarding the proposed UGB expansion.The UGB expansion project included numerous public hearings, community meetings and ongoing coordination. More specifically, Woodburn's Periodic Review Program was approved in 1999. After this approval, there were a series of technical advisory committee meetings, a joint Planning Commission / City Council work session, a series of public open houses, four Planning Commission work sessions, and formal public hearings before the Marion County Board of 129 Commissioners, the Woodburn Planning Commission and the City Council. In the several years required to create the existing record, the City Council finds that the City of Woodburn complied with Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. Notice was mailed to all property owners within the City, the unincorporated area within the existing UGB, and the UGB study areas. Numerous workshops were held within the community to present proposals, answer questions and receive comments. In addition to open houses hosted by staff, formal public 130 hearings were held before the Planning Commission and the City Council. All documents relied upon and the proposed amendments were available on the City’s website, Woodburn City Hall, and the Woodburn City Library. All of the public input received in the hearing processes was considered and retained. In fact, the existing record shows that during the extensive public engagement process some modifications were made to the UGB expansion proposal based on 131 comments received during the City Council’s public hearing and deliberation process. The City Council finds that, as a direct result ofextensive citizen involvement, seven inter- related Community Planning Objectives were developed. The UGB expansion proposal was designed so that each of these objectives could be achieved. The Community Planning Objectives are as follows: 128 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 25 - 26. 129 Rec. Item 10, p. 1377 (UGB Justification Report, October 2005, p. 9). 130 Citizen Involvement Report, City of Woodburn 2005 p. 1 - 4. 131 Rec. Item 10, p. 1372 (UGB Justification Report, October 2005, p. 4). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 42 162 1. Implement theWoodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and Economic Development Strategy (EDS) by encouraging higher wage jobs in the community. 2. Improve transportation connections and preserve the capacity of the I-5 Interchange. 3. Provide buildable land for housing, parks and schools while increasing land use efficiency, connectivity and livability through good urban design. 4. Protect Woodburn’s stream corridors, floodplains and wetlands from urban encroachment. 5. Preserve farmland and minimize impacts on agricultural land. 6. Coordinate with Marion County by using the coordinated population projection that Marion County allocated to Woodburn. 132 7. Complete the City’s Periodic Review process. The Woodburn City Council and Marion County Board of Commissioners conducted a public hearing on December 14, 2015 and provided an additional opportunity for public input on the proposed UGB and URA based on evidence contained in the existing record. The City Council concludes that Goal 1: Citizen Involvement is applicable to its decision and was complied with. D.Goal 2: Land Use Planning - OAR 660-015-0000(2) Goal 2 requires all incorporated cities to establish and maintain comprehensive land use plans and implementing ordinances. It also requires cities to coordinatewith other affected government entities in legislative land use processes. The purpose of Goal 2 is to establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an "adequate factual basis" for such decisions and actions. Goal 2 also requires the City to communicate and coordinate with all affected cities, counties, special districts, state, and federal agencies. The City must accommodate the needs of those entities “as much as possible.” 132 Rec. Item 10, p. 1377 (UGB Justification Report, October 2005, p. 9). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 43 163 In approving the UGB expansion and URA, the City Council relies on the following land use 133 studies, incorporated into the existing record,that have been prepared by the City or by firms contracted by the City: Woodburn Local Wetlands Inventory List (Shapiro, 2000) Local Wetlands Inventory and Riparian Assessment (Shapiro, January 5, 2000) Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (ECO Northwest, May 2001) Woodburn Economic Development Strategy (ECONorthwest, June 2001) Woodburn Population and Employment Projections 2000-2002 (ECONorthwest, April 29, 2002) Technical Report 3 Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis Natural Resource Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, November 2002) Woodburn Occupation / Wage Forecast (ECONorthwest, March 20, 2003) Site Requirements for Woodburn Target Industries (ECONorthwest, October 20, 2003) Evaluation of 2004 OEA Population Forecast (ECONorthwest, 2004) Marion County Comprehensive Plan Amendments Memo (Winterbrook, 2004) Marion County Board Minutes (November 10, 2004) Marion County Ordinance 1201 and Findings Approving Population Projection (November 24, 2004) Citizen Involvement Report (City of Woodburn, 2005) Findings of Fact (City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 2005) Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, Update, Explanation of Proposed Plan and Zoning Map Changes (Woodburn Community Development Department, 2005) Technical Report 2 Woodburn Residential Land Need Analysis (Winterbrook Planning, May 2005) Technical Report 1 Buildable Lands Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, July 2005) City of Woodburn Public Facilities Plan (October 2005) Woodburn Comprehensive Plan (October, 2005) Woodburn Transportation System Plan (CH2M Hill, October 2005) Woodburn UGB Justification Report (Winterbrook Planning, October 2005) 133 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp.26- 28. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 44 164 Woodburn City Council Agenda Packet (October 31, 2005) Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010 – 2030 (September 2008) Marion County Ordinance 1291 (October 7, 2009) The City Council finds that the above referenced documents provide the foundation for the proposed UGB expansion and URA. More specifically, the City prepared, and relies on, technical analyses for expanding the urban growth boundary area in accordance with applicable state laws. The City adopted a coordinated population forecast, a Residential Land Needs Analysis, and an Economic Opportunities Analysis in support of the UGB expansion and URA proposal. The City Council further finds, based on the existing record, that the specified studies that the City has undertaken and information received through the public hearing process has provided the Council with an adequate factual basis for the UGB expansion and URA. Finally, Goal 2 requires that the City communicate and coordinate with all affected cities, counties, special districts, and state and federal agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing announcing the February 3, 2005, Planning Commission and March 28, 2005, City Council public hearings, explaining the nature of the proposed amendments and soliciting comments, was mailed to the following potentially affected units of government and agencies on January 14, 2005: Marion County Department of Land Conservation and Development Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Water Resources Department Division of State Lands Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon State Health Division Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 45 165 Woodburn School District Woodburn Fire District Marion County Planning Department City of Hubbard City of Gervais Specifically, in regard to coordination with Marion County, the City has followed the Coordination Agreementwhich provides guidance regarding the applicable UGB amendment process. As coordination with affected cities, Woodburn provided notice and an opportunity to comment to the cities of Hubbard and Gervais, the Woodburn Fire District, the Woodburn School District and all affected state and federal agencies. Notice of Public Hearing announcing the joint City Council/Marion County Board of Commissioners public hearingwas mailed to DLCD 35 days in advance of the December 14, 2015 hearingdate. Notices were sent to all of the other agencies noted above 20 days in advance of the joint hearing. The City Council concludes that Goal 2: Land Use Planning is applicable to its decision and was complied with. E.Goal 3: Agriculture Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(3) Woodburn is surrounded by lands designated for agricultural use. Compliance with Goal 3 in the context of a UGB amendment relies on satisfaction of Goal 14 requirements and ORS 197.298. Because the Legislative Findings on Remand demonstrate that the proposed UGB expansion complies with Goal 14, the City Council concludes that is has also complied with Goal 3: Agriculture - OAR 660-015-0000(3). This decision further complies with Goal 3 by providing for long-term protection of the farm land around and outside of the proposed urban growth boundary by adopting an ‘urban expansion limit’ in two locations. For 20 years from the date this UGB decision is final and Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 46 166 acknowledged, neither the City nor the County shall seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn urban growth boundary beyond the urban expansion limits described in the Findings to this UGB decision. These limits are enforced through this decision and through inter-governmental agreements adopted by the City of Woodburn and Marion County, as further described in the Findings and in those agreements. F.Goal 4: Forest Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(4) Because no land surrounding the City is designated for forestry use, Goal 4 does not apply. G.Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces - OAR 660- 015-0000(5) Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR chapter 660, division 23, address protection of significant natural, scenic and historic resources and open space. Rules in OAR 660, division 23, specify which resource categories must be protected by comprehensive plans and which are subject to local discretion and circumstances; the rules provide guidance on how to complete inventories and protection programs, and when the rule requirements apply. OAR 660, division 23, requires cities to inventory significant riparian areas, wetlands and wildlife habitat. Goal 5 requires cities to inventory specified resources and to adopt programs to “protect natural resources” and “conserve scenic, historic and open space resources.” The City Council finds that some of the resources that the goal requires to be inventoried do not exist in Woodburn (specifically: federal wild and scenic rivers; state scenic waterways; approved Oregon recreation trails; natural areas listed on the register of natural resources; and federally designated wildlife areas). The Goal 5 resources that mayapply to Woodburn are limited to the following: a.Riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fish habitat; b.Wetlands; Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 47 167 c.Wildlife habitat; d.Groundwater resources; e.Mineral and aggregate resources; f.Energy sources; g.Cultural areas. OAR 660-023-0030 through 660-023-0050 contain the requirements for all resources. For each resource category, the rule contains standard requirements and, in some instances, an alternative “safe harbor” standard for satisfying Goal 5. There are safe harbor alternatives for riparian corridors and wetlands. OAR 660-023-090 and 660-023-100. Woodburn followed the safe harbor provisions and included the safe harbor requirements in the new Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District (RCWOD) amended zoning district. Riparian Corridors and Wetlands (OAR 660-023-0090 and 660-023-0100) Safe harbor provisions allow the City to determine significant riparian corridors by using a standard setback distance from all fish-bearing streams, based on ODFW maps indicating fish habitat. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has designated Mill Creek and Senecal Creek as fish bearing streams. For streams with an average annual stream flow less than 1,000 cubic feet, the riparian corridor standard setback a distance of 50 feet upland from the top of each bank defined as the 2-year flood elevation. Where a riparian corridor includes all or part of a significant wetland, the riparian corridor extends upland 50 feet from the upland edge of the wetland. Woodburn has adopted plan policies and implementing regulations that satisfy the riparian corridor safe harbor provisions. Wildlife Habitat for Special Status Species (OAR 660-023-0110(4)) OAR 660, division 23 contains safe harbor provisions for wildlife habitat areas at that narrow potentially significant habitats to only the following: Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 48 168 1. Habitat used by a species designated as threatened, endangered or sensitive; 2. Nesting, roosting or watering habitat of osprey or great blue heron; 3. A habitat included in a ODFW adopted management plan; 4. A habitat mapped by ODFW for a species or habitat of concern. The City Council finds that there are no wildlife habitat resources in the UGB expansion area that the City is required to protect other than meeting the minimum protection requirements of the 50 feet riparian corridor and the wetlands protection requirements. Groundwater Resources (OAR 660-023-0140) At the time of periodic review, the City is required to inventory and protect significant groundwater resources. Significant groundwater resources are limited to: (1) critical groundwater areas and groundwater limited areas designated by Oregon Water Resources Commission and (2) wellhead protection areas if the City chooses to designate such areas. The Oregon Department of Human Services and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality have developed a Source Water Protection Plan for the City. The plan inventories potential sources of contamination, establishes best management practices for industries within the influence zone of the City's wells, allows the City to develop ordinances to provide protection of the aquifer, and maps the flow patterns of the aquifers. The City Council finds that the Troutdale aquifer, from which the City obtains its water is not a critical or restrictively classified groundwater area. Mineral and Aggregate Resources (OAR 660-023-0180) OAR 660-023-0180 addresses identification of significant aggregate resources, approval of mining activity, and protection of the resource from conflicting uses. The rule sets criteria for Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 49 169 significance and prescribes a process for evaluating potential impacts from the proposed mining activity. The City Council takes official notice of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan and notes that its inventory does not contain any mineral or aggregate resource sites in the UGB expansion area. Consequently, the City Council finds that OAR 660-023-0180 is inapplicable to the UGB expansion. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 50 170 Energy Sources (OAR 660-023-0190) No natural gas, surface water, geothermal, solar, or wind area resource sites have been identified in the Woodburn area and the City Council finds that OAR 660-023-0190 is inapplicable to the UGB expansion and URA. Inventories Required by Goal 5 Performance Woodburn inventoried all natural resources, scenic, historic and open spaces, amending the Comprehensive Plan, Park Master Plan and Woodburn Development Ordinance 134 accordingly. Adopted goals, policies, and land use standards meet state standards and the City 135 has been found in compliance with Goal 5. The City Council concludes that Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. H.Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - OAR 660-015-0000(6) Goal 6 requires that “air, water and land resource quality” not be “degraded” because of planned urban development. DEQ is responsible for administration of the Clear Air Act and the Clean Water Act at the state level. Cities meet Goal 6 through demonstration of compliance with Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) air, water and land quality administrative rules. Water quality standards typically are met through EQC approval of plans for sanitary sewer systems. DEQ also regulates point and non-point source emissions related to water and air quality. 134 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 1 - 55. 135 Id., pp.32- 34. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 51 171 Along with other affected state agencies, DEQ wasnotified of the proposed plan 136 amendment package. Woodburn is in compliance with all applicable EQC requirements. The City Council concludes that Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. I.Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 7 requires cities to adopt measures to protect people and property from natural hazards, such as floods, erosion, landslides, earthquakes, and weak foundation soils. Because Woodburn is relatively flat, it does not have significant land slide hazards or erosion and deposition hazards. Woodburn has considerable land within the 100-year floodplains of Mill Creek, Senecal Creek and their tributaries. Woodburn has adopted National Floodplain regulations through Ordinance 2018. 137 Woodburn is in compliance with Goal 7. The City Council concludes that Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. J.Goal 8: Recreational Needs - OAR 660-015-0000(8) Goal 8 has no implementing administrative rule. Woodburn adopted an update to its Parks and Recreation Plan in 1999. That plan was acknowledged to comply with Goal 8 and it satisfied completion of Work Task No. 5 of the City's periodic review order. The UGB JustificationReport explains how Winterbrook used the 1999 Park and 138 Recreation Plan to project years 2020 park land needs. In projecting the amount of park needs 136 Id.,p. 35. 137 Id., pp. 36 - 37. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 52 172 through 2020, Winterbrook applied a ratio of 7 acres per 1,000 population to project need for neighborhood parks and assumed that 50 percent of the park needs would be satisfied on school lands. As explained in the UGB Justification Report, Winterbrook applied the ratio to the projected population of 34,919 and subtracted existing park lands (including 50 percent of school sites) to determine needed park acreage. The 2005 UGB includes sufficient land to meet 139 . Woodburn has an adopted Parks and Recreation identified park needs through the year 2020 140 Plan and is in conformance with Goal 8. The City Council concludes that Goal 8: Recreational Needs is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. K.Goal 10: Housing - OAR 660-015-0000(10) The overall intent of Goal 10 is to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Goal 10 requires jurisdictions to provide the housing needs of its existing and future 141 . There is residents. Woodburn’s population is projected to grow to 34,919 residents by 2020 a demonstrated need for additional single family and multi-family dwelling units over the 142 planning period that cannot be totally met within the existing UGB. The City has planned on meeting future needs and established efficiency measures to minimize the amount of lands added 143 to the UGB. It has also updated land use standards to carry out the intent of Goal 10 by 144 providing for a variety of housing types to meet its future residential needs. L.Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services - OAR 660-015-0000(11) Goal 11 requires Woodburn to demonstrate that it can provide adequate public facilities and services to serve buildable land within the UGB. Woodburn and Marion County have 138 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1400 - 1402 (UGBJustification Report, pp. 32-34). 139 Rec. Item 10, p. 1402 (UGBJustification Report, p. 34). 140 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 38-39. 141 Rec. Item 10, p. 614 (Woodburn Ordinance No. 2391, November 2, 2005). 142 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1395-1412(UGB Justification Report, pp.27-44). 143 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1398-1410(UGB Justification Report, pp.30-42). 144 Ordinance 2391 (Woodburn Development Ordinance). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 53 173 agreed in their Coordination Agreementthat Woodburn shall be responsible for public facilities 145 planning within the Woodburn UGB. The Goal 11 rulerequires Woodburn to adopt “public facilities plans” that addresses sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water and transportation facilities necessary to support planned housing and employment growth. The City of Woodburn has adopted a Public Facilities Plan, Transportation Systems Plan, Park Master Plan and coordinated with Marion County, Woodburn Fire District and School District, assuring adequate public 146 facilities are available to meet the needs of the community. The City Council concludes that Goal 11: Public Facilities andServices is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. M.Goal 12: Transportation - OAR 660-015-0000(12) The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) implement Goal 12. The TPR requires local governments to prepare a “transportation systems plan” (TSP) that meets the requirements of OAR 660-012-020 through 055. The OHP is a component of Oregon’s Statewide Transportation Plan, and includes policies and investment 147 strategies for the state highway system over the next 20 years. 148 Woodburn's periodic review amendment package included an amended 2005 TSP. The adopted TSP establishes a transportation system that is adequate to serve lands within 149 proposed UGB andURA and is consistent with the Marion County TSP and the Oregon TSP. As Woodburn prepared the TSP, it coordinated with Marion County, ODOT and DLCD. 150 Other agency plans and policies affecting the TSP were reviewed and considered.The City’s 151 plans are consistent with ODOT and Marion County TSPs. 145 See OAR chapter 660, division 11. 146 City of WoodburnFindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 40-53. 147 Id., p. 42. 148 Woodburn Transportation System Plan (CHEM Hill, October 2005). 149 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law p. 42. 150 Id. 151 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 54 174 Woodburn assessed the needs of the road system; public transportation; bicycle and 152 pedestrian system; air, rail, water and pipeline transportation.Woodburn prepared an 153 inventory of the existing conditions and deficiencies of its transportation system. From this information, Woodburn plan for the transportation system that included road, public 154 transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian plans and an associated financing program. Woodburn, adopted new comprehensive plan policies and zoning code language to meet the TPR requirements. The City adopted an overlay district intended to preserve planned capacity improvements to the Woodburn I-5 interchange with Oregon Highway 214. That 155 provision is the Interchange Management Area (IMA) section of the WDO. The TSPreflect changes in population, employment and land uses adopted as part of this 156 decision. The TSP includes goals and objectives, forecasts traffic growth in the City, and 157 identifies transportation improvements needed to satisfy the forecasted growth. The City has adopted a Public Facilities Plan, Transportation Systems Plan, Park Master Plan and coordinated with Marion County, Woodburn Fire District and School District, assuring 158 adequate public facilities are available to meet the needs of the community.The City’s Transportation System Plan complies with the requirements of Goal 12 regarding transportation. The City Council concludes that Goal 12: Transportation is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. 152 Id.,p. 45. 153 Id. 154 Id. 155 Id.,p. 47. 156 Id.,p. 52. 157 Id. 158 City of Woodburn Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pp. 40-53. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 55 175 N.Goal 13: Energy Conservation- OAR 660-015-0000(13) Goal 13 Provides as follows: To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. There are no known non-renewable sources of energy within the Woodburn UGB. The 2005 UGB and URA amendments are adjacent to the existing UGB, thus maintaining a contiguous, compact, energy-efficient urban growth form and reducing vehicle miles traveled. The UGB amendments rely on gravity flow sanitary sewer collection, thus eliminating the need for sanitary sewer pump stations. Goal 13 requirements have been met by using transportation facilities more efficiently, minimizing vehicle miles traveled by placing housingnear employment and providing for the 159 . logical and economical extension of public facilities The City Council concludes that Goal 13: Energy Conservation is applicable to its decision and has been complied with. O.Overall Conclusion –Statewide Planning Goals Based on the foregoing, the City Council concludes that Woodburn’s UGB amendment and URA conform to all applicable Statewide Planning Goals. On remand, Woodburn has reduced the overall amount of land included in the UGB and established safeguards to ensure efficiency of land use through the establishment of minimum residential densities and lot size requirements for industrial development. An Urban Reserve was established to meet future land use needs beyond the 20 year planning horizon. 159 Id.,p. 54. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 56 176 P.Findings on Economic Importance of the Agricultural Industry to Woodburn and to Marion County Agriculture in Oregon is a multi-billion dollar industry, and Marion County ranks number oneamong Oregon counties in gross agricultural sales. Agriculture is also a traded-sector industry- 80 percent of all production leaves the state –and that brings new dollars back into the state and region. Agricultural exports rank number onein volume and number twoin value 160 The agricultural industry has been growing in value in Oregon and among all Oregon exports. in Marion County for over a decade. Marion County has some of the best soils in the world, and coupled with an excellent climate and water conditions the region grows a wide variety of crops. This capacity to grow a diversity of products is one of the primary attributes of the agricultural soils in the Woodburn area, and enables farmers to “quick\[ly\] adapt and respond to market changes and demands. *** 161 The burgeoning wine and nursery industries are examples of this adaptability.” 162 Agricultural sales in Marion County alone topped half a billion dollars in 2005.In 163 2004, Marion County direct agricultural sales posted a record high. The County has significant infrastructure and related “cluster” industries that both support this agricultural economy and contribute to economic growth of the region and state. As the Marion County Farm Bureau stated, “Agricultural land is industrial land, land that is 164 supporting a successful portion of our county’s economy.” 160 Data from Oregon Departmentof Agriculture, included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug. 23, 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 101. 161 Letter from Kathleen and Lolita Carl, fifth generation local farmers, August 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 169. 162 Data from Oregon Department. of Agriculture, included in 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Aug. 23, 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 101. 163 Marion County Farm Bureau, letter of August 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 162. 164 Id. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 57 177 Woodburn is situated in the heart of this agricultural region. Woodburn residents work in 165 all facets of the agricultural industry. Woodburn businesses, such as insurance companies, banks, and law and accounting firms, provide services to farms and farmers. Woodburn 166 And, Woodburn businesses process businesses sell and repair agricultural equipment. agricultural products, thereby adding retail value. During the decade of the 1990s, employment 167 in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector grew by 39 percent in the Woodburn zip code. 168 No other sector employs a greater percentage of Woodburn residents.Between 1990-1999, employment in the agricultural services sector in the Woodburn zip code grew by 476 percent, 169 far exceeding the average growth rate of 57percentfor the same area. Woodburn follows the State of Oregon in projecting the agricultural economy of the region to continue growing and being a significant contributor to the City’s and region’s economies. Because unlike any other industry, the agricultural industry is dependent on the rich soils, climate, and water of the area, the City chooses to focus other employment and residential growth in the existing UGB, while being conservative in any expansions of thatUGB –both in terms of acreage and in terms of valuable farm land. The City further recognizes that development of valuable farmland has a “spillover” impact on surrounding farms and agricultural activities, by creating urban traffic congestion in farming areas, and increasing conflicts such as vandalism, theft, trespassing, and complaints 170 Therefore, the City will work about common farm practices, such as night-time harvesting. with the Marion County to minimize the impacts of urbanization at the “edge,” including by designing roads and buffers at the edge that will discourage incompatible urban traffic in and near farming areas. 165 Rec. Item 6, p. 162: Letter of Marion County Farm Bureau, August 22, 2006; Woodburn Economic Opportunity Analysis, May 2001, p. 2 - 4 Table 2 - 3; Rec. Item 10, p. 1022. 166 Rec. Item 6, p. 170: Carl family, Pudding River Ranch letter of August 23, 2006 167 Woodburn Economic Opportunity Analysis, May 2001, p. 2-4 Table 2-3; Rec. Item 10, p. 1022. 168 Id., pp. 3-10 Table 3 - 8; Rec. Item 10, p. 1040. 169 Id.,p. 2-2; Rec. Item 10, p. 1020. 170 Letter from Kathleen and Lolita Carl, fifth generation local farmers, August 2006; Rec. Item 6, p. 170. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 58 178 In particular, the areas to the north and northeast of the current UGB and to the west of Butteville Road NE consist of the highest quality soils and are part of larger and very productive agricultural regions. The area north of the current UGB, known as Study Area 2, consists primarily of Class I 171 and IIsoils, the most productive and highest capability soils that exist. Current agricultural 172 uses include filberts (a high value crop), grass seed, orchards, and grain.The soils are also 173 suitable for hops, vegetables, berries, and other crops. The farming units are large, and are 174 part of a larger agricultural area of excellent soils sweeping to the north and northeast. Similarly, the land to the west of Butteville Road, some of which is in Study Area 8 and 175 some of which is to the west of that Study Area, consists primarily of Class I and IIsoils. 176 Almost all the resource land in Study Area 8 is also high-value farmland.The soils are capable of growing a wide variety of crops, including grains, berries, hops, orchards, hay, 177 vegetables, grass seed, and more.This farming area is in mostly large parcels, and is part of an agricultural production area that stretches uninterrupted west. The land northeast of the City is in Study Area 3. Agricultural soils in Study Area 3 are 178 primarily Class II (prime) and high-value.These soils are suitable for the wide range of crops 179 described above. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, requires that the Woodburn and Marion County comprehensive plans, implementation measures, and other land use and transportation actions be 171 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15).See map at Attachment2: Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. 172 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1429-1430(UGB Justification Report, pp.61-62). 173 Rec. Item 10, pp. 1441-1446 (Id., pp. 73-76 and Table 18). 174 Id. 175 Rec. Item 10 p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15) and Rec. Item 10 p. 1442 (UGB Justification Report, p. 74, Table 18). 176 Technical Report 3, Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis, November 2002, p. 9, Table 4b. 177 Rec Item 10, pp.1442-1444 (UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). 178 Rec. Item 10, p. 1418(UGB Justification Report, p. 50, Table 15). 179 Rec Item 10, pp.1442-1444 (UGB Justification Report, pp. 74-76). Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 59 179 both consistent and coordinated with one another. Therefore, Woodburn and Marion County have entered into a Coordination Agreement. The Coordination Agreement is “required to be consistent with the Urban Growth 180 and it is to be Management Framework of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan,” 181 “\[c\]oordinate\[d\]…with…the Marion County Comprehensive Plan.”The Marion County comprehensive land use plan includes the Urbanization element. The Coordination Agreementand Urbanization element of the County’s plan all recognize the primacy of the county’s agricultural industry; the need to reduce conflicts between urban uses and natural resource uses; the desire for compact, diverse and walkable neighborhoods; the need to efficiently use existing urban land and the adverse impacts of sprawling development patterns; and the financial necessity to use infrastructure efficiently. For example, the County’s Urbanization policy describes the both the importance of the agricultural industry and the conflicts that can result from sprawling urban development patterns: “\[T\[he problems that sprawl poses to people of Marion County are probably more crucial than in most other areas because of the importance of natural resources to the local 182 economy.” “The problems associated with a pattern of sprawling development involve both direct and indirect monetary and social costs, affecting allpeople of the County, whether urban or rural. Some of the problems resulting from sprawl are: a.A land use pattern which is less desirable and less stable than could be achieved by coordinated, planned development; b.A land use pattern which is costly to develop and service; 180 Coordination Agreement, p. 6. 181 Id.,p. 1. 182 Marion County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Urbanization, p. IID-1. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 60 180 c.A greater expenditure of land and energy resources; and 183 d.A greater disruption of agricultural uses.” “As urban areas continue to expand, these resource landsare either directly converted to urban uses or are adversely impacted due to inherent conflicts between rural and urban activities.*** If agricultural, forestry and other land resource based interests are to remain 184 sound, then the pattern of urbanization needs to be contained.” The Urbanization policy recognizes in particular the economic and social reasons for compact urban development patterns, focused inside existing UGBs: “Urban Growth Policies *** “The mutual agreement of the cities and the County to these policies is vital to the effective coordination and cooperation necessary to implement each urban growth program. The following are urban growth policies that should guide the conversion of the urbanizable areas adjacent to each city to urban uses. *** “2. The provision of urban services and facilities should be in an orderly economic basis according to a phased growth plan. 3. Development of the urban area should proceed from its center outward. 4. Development should occur in areas of existingservices before extending new 185 services.” The “purpose of the Urban Growth Management Framework is to”: “3. Protect farm, forest, and resource lands throughout the County by considering the existing growth capacity of each community, fostering the efficient use of land, and 186 evaluating urban growth boundary expansion needs.” 183 Id. 184 Id.,p. IID-2. 185 Id.,p. 6. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 61 181 In recognition of the dual goals of protecting the region’s agricultural industry and providing for urban development, the City and County have agreed to the following Framework: “One of the most important functions of City plans is the ability to plan for urban growth boundary expansions needed to accommodate projected growth. At the same time, one of the highest principles of Marion County is to prevent sprawl in order to protect valuable farm and forest lands. Included in the Framework strategy are land efficiency guidelines 187 for cities to consider in analyzing land needs.” To meet its Goal 2 legal obligations under the Coordination Agreementand the Urban Growth Management Framework of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan, as well as it Goal 10 needed housing, Goal 9 economic development, and Goals 11 and 14 efficient use of existing land and infrastructure obligations, this Woodburn UGB decision incorporates the following land efficiency actions: • Focus most residential development in the existing UGB, primarily in higher density, mixed use and walkable areas near schools and services. (SeeIV B.5 of the findings) • Accommodate mostcommercial employment and much of the industrial employment inside the existing UGB, on vacant lands and through infill and re- development. (See IV 3 and 4 of the findings) • Minimize the amount of any UGB expansion, and direct any expansion to lands that are of lesser quality agricultural soils and situated where the conflicts between urban and rural uses can be minimized. (SeeIV C of the findings) • Incorporate requirements to minimize conflicts between urban and rural uses at the UGB edge. (See VI of the findings) • Protect the economy of Woodburn by minimizing the unnecessary extension of infrastructure –including roads and sewer and water service –through more 186 Id.,p. 8. 187 Id., p. 10. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 62 182 efficient use of the existing land and infrastructure inside the UGB. (SeeIV C of the findings) VIII.ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: UGB in Response to Remand Map. Attachment 2:Study Area and Soils Capability Class Map. Attachment 3:Urban Reserve Map. Attachment 4: UGB Expansion Limitation Map. Legislative Findings on Remand - Page 63 183 Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Goals and Policies Goal G-1. The City's goal is to manage growth in a balanced, orderly and efficient manner, consistent with the City’s coordinated population projection. Policies G-1.1 Woodburn will assure that all expansion areas of the City are served by public facilities and services with adequate capacity. Consideration of proposals that vary from City capacity standards and facility master plans shall include mitigating measures determined to beappropriate the Public Works Department. Other public service providers such as the School District and Fire District shall also address capacity considerations. G-1.2 Woodburn will encourage the optimum use of the residential land inventory providing opportunities for infill lots, intensifying development along transit corridors, and application of minimum densities. G-1.3 The City shall provide an interconnected street system to improve the efficiency of movement by providing direct linkages between origins and destinations. G-1.4 The City shall assure the provision of major streets as shown in the Transportation Systems Plan. The City shall hold development accountable for streets within and abutting the development. In addition, the policy of the City is to emphasize development outward in successive steps and phases that avoid unnecessary gaps in the development and improvement of the streets. G-1.5 The City’s policy is to consider the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) when investing public fundsor leveraging private investment. 184 G-1.6 The City shall encourage high standards of design and flexibility that are enabled by the PUD zone. G-1.7 The City’s policy is to accommodate industrial and commercial growth consistent with the 2001 Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). G-1.8 Woodburn’s policy is to diversify the local economy. Woodburn seeks to diversify the local economy so that the community will prosper and can weather swings in the business cycle, seasonal fluctuations, and other economic variables. The intent is to provide a broad spectrum of commercial and industrial enterprises. The variety of enterprises will not only provide insulation from negative business factors, but a choice in employment opportunities that in turn allows for the diversification in income types. G-1.9 To ensure that growth is orderly and efficient, the City shall phase the needed public services in accordance with the expected growth. Extensions of the existing public services should be in accordance with the facility master plans and Public Facility Plan in this Comprehensive Plan. G-1.10 Woodburn will ensure that land is efficiently used within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by requiring master development plans for land within Nodal Development Overlay or Southwest Industrial Reserve overlay designations. Master plans shall address street connectivity and access, efficient provision of public facilities, and retention of large parcels for their intended purpose(s). G-1.11 The City shall pay for public facilities with system development charges from anticipated growth. G-1.12 The County shall retain responsibility for regulating land use on lands within the urban growth area (unincorporated land inside the UGB)until such lands are annexed by the City. The urban growth area has been identified by the City as urbanizable and is considered to be available, over time, for urban development. 185 G-1.13 The City and County shall maintain a process providing for an exchange of information and recommendations relating to land use proposals in the urban growth area. Land use activities being considered within the urban growth area by the County shall be forwarded by the County to the City for comments and recommendations. The City shall respond within twenty days, unless the City requests and the County grants an extension. G-1.14 All land use actions within the urban growth area and outside the City limits shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the County's land use regulations. G-1.15 In order to promote consistency and coordination between the City and County, both the City and County shall review and approve amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan which apply to the portion of the urban growth area outside the City limits. Such changes shall be considered first by the City and referred to the County prior to final adoption. If the County approves a proposed amendment to the City's plan, the change shall be adopted by ordinance, and made a part of the County's plan. G-1.16 The area outside the urban growth boundary, including the area within the Urban Reserve Area (URA), shall be maintained in rural and resource uses consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. G-1.17 The City and County shall strive to enhance the livability and promote logical and orderly development of the urban growth area in a cost effective manner. The County shall not allow urban uses within the Urban Growth Boundary prior to annexation to the City unless agreed to in writing by theCity. City sewer and water facilities shall not be extended beyond the City limits, except as may be agreed to in writing by the City and the property owner and the owner consents to annex. The City shall be responsible for preparing the public facilities plan. 186 G-1.18 Conversion of land within the boundary to urban uses shall be based on a consideration of: (a)Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services; (b)Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to ensure choices in the market place; (c)LCDC Goals; (d)Further development of vacant and under utilized residential land within the City’s buildable land inventory before annexing additional territory for conversion to residential use at urban densities; and (e)Applicable provisions of the Marion County and City Comprehensive Plans. G-1.19 Woodburn is committed to working with Marion County to minimize conversion of farm and forest lands, by achieving a compact urban growth form. The City shall zone buildable land such that the privatesector can achieve 8 units per gross acre, consistent with the City’s housing needs analysis. This efficiency standard represents the average density for new housing that will be zoned and allowed under clear and objective standards by the City. Througha combination of infill, redevelopment, vertical mixed use development and provision for smaller lot sizes and a greater variety of housing types, Woodburn provides the opportunity for the private sector to achieve at least 8 dwelling units per gross buildable acre (after removing protected natural areas and land needed for parks, schools and religious institutions). Housing through infill and redevelopment counts as new units, but no new land consumption, effectively increasing the density measurement. G-1.20 Woodburn designates and establishestwo 20-yearUGB Expansion Limitations as depicted in Figure G-1.20, which is adopted as part of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. For 20 years from the date theUGB amendment decision is acknowledged, the City shall not seek, consider, or approve an expansion of the Woodburn UGBin the following areas: 187 • West of the portion of Butteville Road NE, as depicted in Figure G-1.20. • Northeast of Highway 99E located at the northeast edge of the existing UGB, as depicted in Figure G-1.20: To further the mutual objective of the City and County to enhance livability and promote logical and orderly development in a cost effective manner, bothUGB Expansion Limitations shall function as boundaries that shall not be crossed by any UGB expansion for a period of 20 years. G-1.21 The City and Marion County have jointly agreed to establish an Urban Reserve Area (URA) consistent with state law. The URA is designated and established west and south of Parr Road as specified in Figure G-1.21, which is adopted as part of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Designating a URA achieves the following objectives: (A) It identifies appropriate landsto be reserved for eventual inclusion in the UGB; (B) In conjunction with Marion County’s adoption of policies and regulations for the URA, it protects this land from development patterns that would impede long-term urbanization; and (C) it provides more certainty for jurisdictions, service districts and property owners 188 to undertake longer-term planning for public facilities and services such as transportation, sewer and water, schools and parks. G-1.22 Woodburn shall apply a minimum density standard for new subdivisions and planned unit developments of approximately 80% of the allowed density in each residential zone. G-1.23 As specified in the Marion County Framework Plan, the County’s preliminary employment land use needs for Woodburn are replaced by the more detailed employment forecasts and site suitability analysis found in the 2001 Woodburn EOA. G-1.24 Woodburn will consider residential and commercial redevelopment and infill potential for purposes of calculating UGB capacity, prior to expanding the UGB. Woodburn will also constrain the supply of commercial land to encourage redevelopment along Highway 214 west of Interstate 5, and along Highway 99W. G-1.25 Woodburn has identified two areas for mixed-use development –Downtown Woodburn and theNodal Development District along Parr Road. The UGB Justification Report 189 includes specific estimates of the number of new housing units and commercial jobs that can be accommodated in these overlay districts. G-1.26 Woodburn intends the UGB expansion area known as the Southwest Industrial Reserve comprising approximately 190 acres, locatedeast of Butteville Road and north of Parr Road to be used for larger industrial users. Consistent with other provisions contained in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, all land within the Southwest Industrial Reserve shall be reserved exclusively for industrial uses identified in the EOA and shall not be converted to another commercial or residential plan designation. Specific lot size standards shallbe established limiting the size and number of future lots for these properties. G-1.27 Woodburn recognizes that residential uses present the most adverse conflicts with both agricultural practices and with many industrial uses, especially those that use trucks as part of their regular business practice. Woodburn and Marion County recognize that the land to the west of Butteville RoadNE is a critical part of the irreplaceable land base of the region’s agricultural industry. Therefore, to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural uses and to minimize conflicts between the industrial uses in Southwest Industrial Reserve and other urban uses, the City and County will: • Ensure that the design of any improvements tothe portion of Butteville RoadNE serving the Southwest Industrial Reserve not encourage any urban traffic unrelated to the industrial use in the immediate area and unrelated to agricultural uses west of Butteville Road. • As industrial development is planned for in the Southwest Industrial Reserve consideration shall be given to methods that mitigate impacts from development and adjacent agricultural activities. This can include buffers or increased setbacks along Butteville Road, providedthat any buffers needed to reduce conflicts between the industrial uses and agricultural activity west of Butteville RoadNE are located inside the UGB. 190 P S / P O C O C PS/P P S / P P S / P O C P S / P O C G O C C M R M R 191 M R O C PS/P M R R1S R1S 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitation Attachment 2 p. 1456 Study Areas & Soils Item 10, Capability Class Map UGB Justification Report 192 - Woodburn Source: YR A D N UO B H T W O RG N A B RU T N E RR U C 193 DR EL LIV ETT UB 5 E T A T S R E T N I R D U EA AT H C D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P N O I N U 194 Y A W N O D S I 5L R 6 L AD R Y MYR EE C A D NTVR R S Y A R R E L ATA D L W IS P VE R E H D E TER TT N R U G N E BEE R CR G E R E V B )E T V S P (KCD R YEN W 7 CIRRA O L1 E 5 IR VEM N A AND DLCR OOE W- HC 9 E 1 N) IT 2 V PP ( Y DR NEE RGREV E S W R I C H T S E A T IE R VS A A K EE R D N T EP AVE LI D S Y NA ON L O WULI J T NH I S B O Y RR T O JS N EVA DNAL DOOW S EE VA D NAL D VOO W E TS ESIDA RAP ET V S A T AICA CA ES V R A E A I P C O A O C TT AH S S T S A S A D T E NMV IA AH RAD LEC G C U A TS EIRI ARP N Y C M W H E G V A R E V A E E EVA E VILO WV O I L B L IL W O W E N - 9 1 2 Y EVA M LAP K W E E RH C L E E A V C T E A N A E E ST Y R A O S W MN AO S CI L Y EVA L EROMA SCYSA Y C A T 5 S E T ) A T T V S R P STI MIL YT IC (E T N N I T L C M N E UVA WOL OLIW L S P R A C ) Y T A V W L I)P A ( RT STI MIL Y TIC V EN FD PL A(A T D NO N AO R SL OL N AI R A W ER HR ED T E RV O RC N I N5 R 6 O RT T M G C N ID E L R L R UE E BL L I V E T T U B T S 9 T 1 2 S Y W H E T A T S K D D CR N I2E L LI V E MT T U B R O C c T SM 1 2 7 RM DR ELLIVE TTUB 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitation (No.1) 9 1 2 Y W H E T A T S Y A W L I A R E F A T N A S N R E N H TL R OY N E N N O T F G NA I L T R S U EB N DD R R Y R A C E I L L B U P ) 8 1 5 R C ( D R N U R B E L 9 1 2 Y W H E T A T S Exhibit C MARION COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN URBANIZATION ELEMENT \[Text that follows is added to the comprehensive plan element.\] WOODBURN URBAN RESERVE AND EXPANSION AREALIMITATIONS Pursuant to ORS 195.145(1)(a) and OAR chapter 660, division 21, and in coordination with Marion County, Woodburn designated approximately 230 acres to the southwest of its urban growth boundary for an urban reserve. When reviewing its urban growth boundary in the future, this will be the first area into which the city considers expanding its urban growth boundary if a need to expand the urban growth boundary is demonstrated. The urban reserve area will be managed consistent with an urban area coordination agreement adopted by both the city and the county. In addition to establishing the urban reserve, Woodburn, in coordination with Marion County, has identified two areas where expansion of the city’s urban growth boundary will be limited for twenty years. The expansion limited areas are shown on the city’s comprehensive plan map and will be managed consistent with the urban area coordination agreement adopted by both the city and the county. In establishing these expansion limited areas, the city and county recognize that urbanization near farmland can have an adverse impact on surrounding farms and agricultural activities. Without adequate buffers, measures to reduce conflicts, and long-term certainty for those farming near the UGB, the agricultural industry in thisregion of Woodburn could be adversely impacted. II D - 1 195 D Exhibit P S / P O C O C PS/P P S / P P S / P O C P S / P O C G O C C M R M R 196 M R O C PS/P M R R1S R1S 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitation R D U EA AT H C D A O E R L I Exhibit A R C I F I C A P N O I N U 197 Y A W N O D S I 5L R 6 L AD R Y MYR EE C A D NTVR R S Y A R R E L ATA D L W IS P VE R E H D E TER TT N R U G N E BEE R CR G E R E V B )E T V S P (KCD R YEN W 7 CIRRA O L1 E 5 IR VEM N A AND DLCR OOE W- HC 9 E 1 N) IT 2 V PP ( Y DR NEE RGREV E S W R I C H T S E A T IE R VS A A K EE R D N T EP AVE LI D S Y NA ON L O WULI J T NH I S B O Y RR T O JS N EVA DNAL DOOW S EE VA D NAL D VOO W E TS ESIDA RAP ET V S A T AICA CA ES V R A E A I P C O A O C TT AH S S T S A S A D T E NMV IA AH RAD LEC G C U A TS EIRI ARP N Y C M W H E G V A R E V A E E EVA E VILO WV O I L B L IL W O W E N - 9 1 2 Y EVA M LAP K W E E RH C L E E A V C T E A N A E E ST Y R A O S W MN AO S CI L Y EVA L EROMA SCYSA Y C A T 5 S E T ) A T T V S R P STI MIL YT IC (E T N N I T L C M N E UVA WOL OLIW L S P R A C ) Y T A V W L I)P A ( RT STI MIL Y TIC V EN FD PL A(A T D NO N AO R SL OL N AI R A W ER HR ED T E RV O RC N I N5 R 6 O RT T M G C N ID E L R L R UE E BL L I V E T T U B T S 9 T 1 2 S Y W H E T A T S K D D CR N I2E L LI V E MT T U B R O C c T SM 1 2 7 RM DR ELLIVE TTUB 20-Year UGB Expansion Limitation (No.1) 9 1 2 Y W H E T A T S Y A W L I A R E F A T N A S N R E N H TL R OY N E N N O T F G NA I L T R S U EB N DD R R Y R A C E I L L B U P ) 8 1 5 R C ( D R N U R B E L 9 1 2 Y W H E T A T S YR A D N UO B H T W O RG N A B RU T N E RR U C 198 DR EL LIV ETT UB 5 E T A T S R E T N I Agenda Item December 14, 2015 TO:Honorable Mayor and Council FROM:Scott Derickson,City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution to Comply with HB 2174 (2015) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: As discussed duringthe City Auditor's presentation onNovember 9, 2015, there are two required budget actions forFY 2014-2015. PerHB 2174 they include: 1) recording the Street SDC Fund's final ODOT Interchange paymentas an expenditure and; 2) recording Woodburn Housing Rehab grant funds as "revenue" as opposed to "pass-throughfunds." HB 2174 (2015) requires that the City Council adopt a Resolution addressing these two items. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator ___x___City Attorney __x____Finance ___x____ 199 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2993 RESOLUTION NO. 2070 A RESOLUTION TO COMPLY WITH HB 2174 (2015) AFTERRECEIPT OF THE FY 2014- 2015 AUDIT REPORT under Oregon law, the City is required to prepare and file an WHEREAS, annual audit report with the Oregon Secretary of State; and the City commissioned an independent audit by Grove, Mueller WHEREAS, and Swank, P.C. ("the City Auditor") for FY 2014-2015; and the City Auditor reported on the results of the FY 2014-2015 WHEREAS, Audit Report at theNovember 9, 2015 City Council meeting; and HB 2174 (2015)requires that this Resolution be adopted by the WHEREAS, City Council in response to the FY 2014-2015 Audit Report by the City Auditor, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Auditor found two matters that should be addressed in Section 1. this Resolution in conformance with HB 2174 (2015). In the first matter found by the City Auditor, the City paid $4.2 Section 2. million to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) as the City’s contribution to completing the I-5 Interchange Improvement and this amount wasproperly budgeted by the City in FY 2015-2016. The City Auditor found that since the I-5 Interchange Improvement was completed early,and thus needed to havebeen recorded as of June 30, 2015. It is noted that the FY 2015-2016 Budget did include the ODOT expenditure. It is highly unlikely that this situation would ever recur.City staff will continue to monitor the progress on various projects to be sure that the budgeted expenditures align with the actual project timing. In the second matter found by the City Auditor, when the City Section 3. budgeted the Housing Rehabilitation Fund in FY 2014-2015,it accounted for a portion of this fund as a “pass-through” when it actually was a grant. The City Auditor found that the amount of the grant should have been included as Materials & Servicesin the FY 2014-2015 Budgetas opposed to "pass-through." The City believes that this is also an uncommon situationassociated with this program. City staff procedure will continue to emphasize the importance of Page 1 –Council Bill No. 2993 Resolution No. 2070 200 early Finance Department review of primary documentationrelated to funding arrangements and grants. The City Council finds that neither of these mattersrepresent Section 4. spending that was not approvedand that adequate actions have been immediately taken to comply with HB 2174 (2015). Approved as to form: City AttorneyDate Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Heather Pierson, City Recorder Page 1 –Council Bill No. 2993 Resolution No. 2070 201 AgendaItem December 14, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM:Kristin Wierenga, Recreation Services Manager Via: Jim Row,Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Aquatic Center Use Agreement RECOMMENDATION: It is recommendedthat the City Council authorize the City Administrator to enter into anAquatic Center Use Agreement with Mid-Valley Aquatics. : BACKGROUND The Woodburn Barracudas Swim Team, a year-round privately owned competitive swim club,was recently acquired byMid-Valley Aquatics, a non- profitcorporation headquartered in Salem.Mid-Valley Aquatics was established in 2014 throughthe merger of non-profit swimming organizations Bearcat Swim Club and Northwest Aquatics.With their acquisition of the Barracudas,Mid-Valley Aquatics nowoperates teams in Albany, Salem and Woodburn. The City has a long history of working with and supporting the operation of the Barracudas Swim Team. The transition of the team to full operation and control by Mid-Valley Aquaticsis happening very quickly, and will likelybe completed by the end of December. Since the actual ownership transfer occurred on November 1, 2015, the City and Mid-Valley Aquatics have been operating under a short term rental arrangement for the past 45 days. The proposed agreement varies from the one previously in place with the Barracudas,in that Mid-Valley Aquaticshas requested thatJosh Udermann,the City’scurrent Aquatic Center Supervisor, serve as the coach of the Woodburn team.Josh currentlyworks part-time as a swim coach for Mid-Valley Aquatics in Salem, and both parties believe it would be advantageous for him to take over coaching duties for the team in Woodburn. Agenda Item Review:City Administrator ___x___City Attorney ___x___Finance ___x__ 202 Honorable Mayor and City Council December 14, 2015 Page 2 However, to avoid any potential conflict of interest, we have negotiated an arrangement in which Mid-Valley Aquaticswill contract with the City for swim team coaching services. The City will then assign Josh the responsibility of providing these coaching services to the team. This will eliminate the concern that would exist ifJosh were making decisions regarding pool space availability and fees charged to an outside organization he was also employed by. DISCUSSION: Most of the terms of the enclosed agreement with Mid-Valley Aquatics remain unchanged from the City’s previous agreement withthe Woodburn Barracudas. The major tenets of the agreement include: The term of the agreement is from December 15, 2015 to November 30, o 2016. Mid-Valley Aquatics will be provided access to threelap lanesfrom 4:00 o p.m. – 5:30p.m. every Monday through Friday. Mid-Valley Aquatics will be provided access to dryland workout space o and equipment from 3:30p.m. – 4:00 p.m. every MondaythroughFriday. Mid-Valley Aquatics will pay the City $562 per month for facility use and o $700 per month forcoaching services. Use of the facility for swim meets are available to the team at additional cost. City and Mid-Valley Aquatics agree tojointly operate a high level o instructional swimming program that assists youth in developing the skills necessary tojoin the swim team. : FINANCIAL IMPACT There will not be a net financial impact from this agreement, as the fees Mid- Valley Aquaticswill pay the City for coaching services is equal to the additional personnel costs the City will expend for that work. 203 AQUATIC CENTERUSE AGREEMENT This AQUATIC CENTERUSE AGREEMENT(“Agreement”)is entered by and between the CITY OF WOODBURN, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon ("City"), and Mid-Valley Aquatics,a501(c)3domestic nonprofit corporation,organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon (“Swim Team”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Cityowns and operates the Woodburn Aquatic Center providing swimming and other exercisefacilities to the Woodburn community; and WHEREAS, Swim Team isa competitive swimming organization that desires to utilize the Aquatic Centerfor its members and associated coaches and swim team personnel for daily swim team practice and meets; and WHEREAS, Swim Team desiresto reach out into Woodburn’s diverse community to recruit members and solicit broad participation in its competitive swimming program; and WHEREAS, Swim Team and City desireto work collaboratively in thedevelopment of joint programming that enhances swimming opportunities for local area residents; and WHEREAS, the parties are in agreement that the Aquatic Centershould be utilized by the members of Swim Team, their coaches and associated personnel under the terms and conditions contained herein; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1.City Pool Use.City agrees to authorize Swim Team members, coaches,and associated personnel, and invited guests and their associated personnelto use the City Pool at theAquatic Centerfor Swim Team practice according to the following schedule and conditions: a.Three lap lanes from 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. b.Use of dryland workout space and equipment 3:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. c.Swim Team shall notify City if scheduled uses are canceled or altered. Swim Team will not have access to theCity Pool during high school swim meets; practice may be held in the morning or after the swim meet has concluded as mutually agreed by the Parties. d.Only Swim Team authorized members, coaches and associated personnel may use the City Pool during the rental period listedin section one. Swim Team shall ensure that the City is made aware of the identity of all coaches and associated Swim Team personnel.Swim Team will take necessary measures to assure that Page 1 AQUATIC CENTER USE AGREEMENT 204 Swim Team members, coaches, associated personnel, and parents do not use the City Pool office at any time. e.Swim Team agrees to enforce all posted City Pool rules, in particular all persons shall abide by the rule prohibiting diving in water less than five feet deep. Additionally, Swim Team shall refrain from the practice of “hypoxic training”, in which swimmers hold their breaths for long periods of time while training. Failure to abide by any posted rule shall be sufficient cause to prohibit further any use of the City Pool by Swim Team. f.Swim Team further agrees that the use of City property, such as swim fins and kick boards, shall be incidental and only occur under unusual circumstances, such as swim team tryouts. Swim Team shall exercise great care in the use of City equipment and shall be responsible for any damage to said equipment. If the City Pool facility or property of City located thereon is damaged or destroyed by reason of the negligence or acts of Swim Team employees, participants, and associated personnel using theCity Pool facilities during the times that said City Pool facilities are subject to the use of Swim Team, reimbursement for replacement or repair thereof shall be made by Swim Team to City; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to obligate Swim Team to make repairs for damage which is due to ordinary wear and tear. Swim Team personnel must immediately notify facility staff of any damage to City property which has occurred during the times Swim Team has use of the City Pool facility. g.Swim Team agrees that all coaches and swim team members shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement, maintain active membership with United States Swimming, Inc. h.Swim Team shall be responsible for assigning necessary staff for all scheduled practices and will have substitutes or other staffing solutions to replace ill or absent coaches. 2.Swim Meets. City agrees to allow Swim Team to use the Aquatic Centerfor up to three swim meets under this Agreement upon the following conditions: a.Swim Team agrees to make swim meet requests at least 120 days prior to desired date. b.Swim meetdates and times shall be dependent upon the availability of theCity Pool and City’s ability to provide adequate staffing levels. Swim Team may cancel a previously scheduled swim meet, provided at least 30 days written notice is given to City. In such instances, the swim meet fee will be refunded by the City. Page 2 AQUATIC CENTER USE AGREEMENT 205 c.Swim Team shallpay swim meet fees set forth in this Agreement at least 60 days prior to the date of the swim meet. d.Swim Team shall assign necessary staff for all scheduled swim meets and will have substitutes or other staffing solutions to replace ill or absent coaches. e.City agrees to close the Aquatic Centerto the general public for approved Swim Team swim meets. f.City retains the right to sell concessions during meets. City agrees to allow Swim Teamthe right to sell non-concession merchandise during swim meets. g.Swim Teamwill be responsible for all swim meet set up,post swim meet clean up, including litter removal, collecting lost and found items, cleaning the lobby and placing all equipment in its original location. City lifeguards will be responsible for hosing decks and locker rooms and re-stocking supplies. h.Swim Meet Access.Swim Teamauthorized members, coaches and associated personnel will be allowed access to City Pool for set up, meet activities, and clean up in the following schedule: i.Friday before the scheduled meet: up to three hours. ii.Each day of meet: up to 12 hours for a total of 27 hours maximum per meet. 3.Additional City Pool Use. Additional use of the City Pool by Swim Team shall be confirmed by separate written agreement and issubject to additional charges. Requests for additional use shall be submitted to City for consideration at least twoweeks in advance. Such practices must be scheduled during normal Aquatic Centeroperating hours or additional facility rental fees will apply. 4.On-Site Coaching Services. Swim Team agrees to contract with the City for coaching services at the City Pool. City agrees to provide a Head On-Site Coach for approximately 10 hours per week with responsibilities and duties outlined in Exhibit A. Swim Team and City agree that Aquatic Program Supervisor Josh Udermann will be the Head On-SiteCoach during the term of this Agreement. Should Udermann resign his position with the City, City and Swim Team will re-negotiate the Head On-Site Coach designation. 5.Fees.Swim Team agrees to pay City the following: a.City Pool UseFee.For the term of this Agreement and during the dates and times listed above Swim Team agrees to pay $562 per month forCity Pool use fees. Swim Team agrees to pay $6.25per lane hour for any additional Swim Team practices requested under this Agreement. Morning practices are not included in the monthly rate, but these practices can be added at the listed rates. Page 3 AQUATIC CENTER USE AGREEMENT 206 i.Monthly payments are due on the first of each month and considered late after the fifth. If payment is not received by the fifth, a late fee of $50 (Fifty Dollars) will be assessed. In such instances where the City Pool is closed for repairs or maintenance for periods exceeding two consecutive days, Swim Team’s City Pool use feewill be pro-rated. b.Swim Meet Fee.Swim Team agrees to pay fees related to swim meet according to the following schedule: i.Saturday and/or Sunday Meets May through August. $1,600 or $6 per registered swim meet swimmer, whichever is greater. ii.Saturday and/or Sunday Meets September through April. $1,200 or $4.50per registered swim meet swimmer, whichever is greater. c.On-Site Coaching Services Fee.Swim Team agrees to pay $700 per monthfor on-site coaching services described under the Agreement. If Swim Team roster enrollment reaches 50 or more, Swim Team agrees toincrease payment to City for on-site coaching servicesto $1,000 per month. i.In such instances where the Head On-Site Coach is absent,City agrees to communicate to Swim Team when the Head On-Site Coach will be absent and Swim Team agrees to provide a substitute coach for any missed practices.If the Head On-Site Coach misses three practices in a month, that month’s fee will be pro-rated. ii.Swim Team agrees to reimburse City forexpenses incurred byHead On- Site Coach related to Swim Team (including but not limited to: meet registration, equipment replacement, mileage to-and-from meets, USA Swimming yearly registration, weekend meets, session pay for swim meets). City agrees to include any such expenses in a monthly invoice, including receipts, for the reimbursement amount. iii.Monthly payments are due on the first of each month and considered late after the fifth. If payment is not received by the fifth, a late fee of $50 (Fifty Dollars) will be assessed. 6.Term. This Agreement is effective from December 15, 2015through midnight, November 30, 2016. 7.Termination. This agreement may be terminated for any reason by either party, without recourse by the other, with at least 30 dayswritten notice. The City retains the right in its sole discretion,without recourse by Swim Team,to immediately, without prior written notice, terminate or otherwise limit Swim Team's use of all or any part of the facility for public health or safety. Page 4 AQUATIC CENTER USE AGREEMENT 207 8.Indemnity. Swim Team shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend City and the City's officers, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and all loss, costs, claims, demands, injury, liability and expenses which expenses include reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation and appeal, arising from the activities of Swim Team under this Agreement. This provision does not apply to loss, costs, claims, demands, injury, liability and expenses which expenses include reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation and appeal, arising from the sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents and volunteers. 9.Insurance. Without limiting Swim Team's indemnification of City, Swim Team agrees to carry, at its own expense and for the entire duration of this Agreement, comprehensive general liability insurance for not less than $1,000,000 for injury to one person, not less than $1,000,000 for injuries to all persons arising out of a single accident or occurrence, and not less than $100,000 for damages to property, or a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000. A copy of this policy shall be provided to City prior to Swim Team use of the City Pool facility and shall name City as an additional insured. 10.City Pool Closures.The City Pool will be closed periodically for maintenance and will not be available for use in such instances. Swim Team will be notified at least two weeks prior to such closures, unless emergency repairs preclude advanced notice. In such instances where the City Pool is closed for repairs or maintenance for periods exceeding two consecutive days, Swim Team’s City Pool use fee will be pro-rated. 11.Promotions. In an effort to collaborate in increasing Swim Team participation, City agrees topromote and register participants for the ‘Piranhas’ swim class, the highest level swimming lesson group. City agrees to provide Swim Team with a roster, City will collect registration fees and will pay Swim Team 100% of registration fees on a monthly basis. Swim Team agrees to operate and manage the ‘Piranhas’ swim class, which includes but is not limited to providing coaches and instruction for registrants. In the event that City receives customer complaints or is unsatisfied with the instruction providedby Swim Team, City agrees to communicate said issues to Swim Team in an effort to resolve the complaints. City Administrator, City of Woodburn Date (Name and Title) Date on behalf of the Mid-Valley Aquatics Page 5 AQUATIC CENTER USE AGREEMENT 208 Exhibit A Coaching Services –HeadOn-Site Coach Duties and Responsibilities 1.Coaching:Responsible for leadership and development of the Swim Team members, all swim levels, including: a.Design, organize and implement dryland and water training sessions. b.Set workout schedules, workout groups, and criteria for advancement from group to group. c.Facilitate individual age appropriate goal setting processes with all swimmers. d.Coordinate with Swim Team in the planning of each season's meet and travel schedule. e.Prompt attendance at all scheduled workouts and swim meets. f.Establish an environment that fosters positive team attitudes, encourages self-discipline, sportsmanship, and responsibility. g.Maintain and develop positive relationships with parents, volunteers and swimmers. h.Ensure healthy coach/athlete relationships under USA Swimming guidelines. 2.Oversight and Supervision: Head On-Site Coach Oversight of the day to day duties of the assistant swim coaches a.Provide input and recommendations to Swim Team regarding performance of staff. Swim Team shall be responsible for all training, evaluations, and discipline of Swim Team staff. Head On-Site Coach, as aCity employee, shall not be responsible for management and administrationof Swim Team staff, except for limited oversight and monitoring of performance during Swim Team activities. b.Mentor assistant coaches to foster growth. c.Monitor proper implementation of Swim Team policies and procedures with general membership and Swim Team staff. d.Maintain team roster and daily attendance records for all training groups. 3.Promotion: Assist in the promotion and marketing of Swim Team including: a.Attend community functions and events to promote Swim Team, while also representing the Aquatic Center. b.Assist and implement marketing strategies including maintaining a frequent social media presence. c.Communicate regularly and appropriately with general membership via monthly newsletter, team and training group meetings, email, and individual meetings or conferences as needed. Page 6 AQUATIC CENTER USE AGREEMENT 209 Agenda Item December 14, 2015 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM:Randy Scott, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Mutual Agreement and Order Amendment between the City of Woodburn and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality RECOMMENDATION: The City Council authorize the City Administrator to sign Amendment No. 1 to the Mutual Agreement and Order between the City of Woodburn and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. BACKGROUND: The City of Woodburn was issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit on December 28, 2004. The permit was issued with a compliance schedule for complying with an interim Total Maximum DailyLoad (TMDL) limits for temperature. The City of Woodburn asked that the compliance schedule as outlined in the NDPES permit be delayed until DEQ completed the Molalla-Pudding River Subbasin Study, which would establish the TMDL for the temperaturestandard. DEQ agreed and entered into a Mutual Agreement and Order No. WQ/M-WR-07-082 (MAO) with the City of Woodburn in June of 2007. The agreement defined a compliance schedulefor meeting the TMDL standard for temperature, and also defined interim limits for winter-time ammonia and pH levels for discharge into the Pudding Riveruntil upgrade improvements could be made. DEQ completed the Molalla/Pudding River Basin Study and the TMDLfor temperature was establishedand then approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)on December 31, 2008. This approvalput into motion certain milestones the City needed to comply with as defined in the MAO compliance schedule. The Citycomplied with the compliance schedule, even up to submitting to DEQ final design plansfor the required plant upgrades.However, the proposed plant upgrades were placed on hold dueto pending lawsuits challenging DEQ water quality standards. As a result of these lawsuits, on August Agenda Item Review:City Administrator __x____City Attorney __x____Finance __x___ 210 Honorable Mayor and City Council December 14, 2015 Page 2 8, 2013, EPA disapproved DEQ water quality standards that utilized natural conditions criteria for establishing aTMDL. The Pudding River TMDL for temperature utilized natural conditions and was therefore no longer valid. This last year EPA audited DEQ water quality permit program, one of the results of this audit was need for DEQ to update and/or close out existing MAOwith NPDES permit holders. The amendment updates the City’s MAO. DISCUSSION: The Amendment modifies Paragraph10 of MAO, which defines the compliance schedule and interim limits,with all other portions of the MAO remaining unchanged.The changes are identified below. A.Modifies the compliance schedule for meeting the TMDL for temperature, once the TMDL is established. The modified schedule in the amendment provides more flexibility to the City, incorporates an additional timeframe for DEQ review, allows the City to addressthat review, submitting reportsand design plansto construction. Also provides a provision that the compliance schedule can be modified if, in thefuture, other outside agency approvalsor permits are required. B.As per the current MAO, continues to provide interim limits for pH, but does not require those improvements to be designed and completed at the time upgrades for temperature compliance are made. Per the amendment, thecompliance schedule is now tied to the renewal of the NPDES permit. Through the negotiationof this amendment withDEQ, theyhad requested that the City move forward with making improvement upgrades tomeet pH limitsas defined in the NDPES permit. Staff felt thatthe permitted pH limits are unreasonable, and arebased on low flow conditions for the receiving stream rather than higher winter time flows. The interim pH limits as defined in the MAO are more in line withlimits based on higher flows in the receiving stream, and thus pH flow based limits should be addressed with DEQ at the time the NPDES permit is renewed. C.DEQ has allowed more flexibility in Recycled Water limitations as defined in the NPDES permit. The interim limits established by this amendment now will allow the City to irrigate recycled water without having to mix it with chlorineto reduce E.colilimits. This will decrease operational cost and maintenanceissues. 211 Honorable Mayor and City Council December 14, 2015 Page 3 D.Winter time ammonia interim limits and the compliance schedulefor meeting permittedlimits as established in the initial MAO is eliminated. Staff does not believe we had, or havean issue meeting compliance with the NDPES permitted limits for winter time ammonia. The MAO Interim limits were establishedand the requirement for future compliance upgrades were implemented with regard to an exceedance of the waterquality standardfor winter time ammonia limits that happened at the plant in Februaryof 2007. The plant operations have since changed and wehave met compliancewith the NPDES permitted winter ammonia limit since 2008. Staff recommends that the City Administrator be authorized to sign Amendment No. 1 to the MAO. The amendment does not bring the Cityany closer in moving forward with certain plant upgradeswith regard to temperature, but does provide a more flexible compliance scheduleto deal with future temperature compliance upgrades. The amendment may alsoreduceor eliminate the future cost ofcurrentlyrequired compliance upgrade improvements for winter-time ammonia and pH compliance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no specific costs associated with this amendment to the MAO. 212 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION 1 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 ) 3 IN THE MATTER OF: ) AMENDMENT NO. 1 ) 4 CITY OF WOODBURN ) MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND ) ORDER NO. WQ/M-WR-07-082 5 Permittee. ) 6 7 WHEREAS: 8 , 1. On June 19, 2007the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Permittee 9 entered into Mutual Agreement and Order (MAO) No. WQ/M-WR-07-082. 10 2. Paragraph 14 of MAO states: “The terms of this MAO may be amended by the 11 mutual agreement of the Department and Permittee. 12 NOW THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed that the compliance order of the MAO 13 should be amended as follows: 14 3. Paragraph 10 is amended to read: 15 A. Requiring Permittee to upgrade the treatment and disposal facilities, as necessary to 16 comply with Excess Thermal Load limit, in accordance with the following schedule: 17 a. By no later than 120 days after establishment and approval of a Temperature 18 TMDL for the Pudding River, the Permittee must submit to DEQ for approval an evaluation report 19 that specifies whether the present treatment facilities can comply with the final thermal waste load 20 allocation. If the current facilities cannot comply, the report must include an evaluation of 21 alternatives and identification of necessary corrective actions and improvements. 22 b. Within 45 days of receiving DEQ comments to the evaluation report, revise 23 the report consistent with DEQ’s comments and resubmit to DEQ for approval. 24 c. By no later than one (1) year after DEQ approval of the evaluation report and 25 necessary corrective actions, the Permittee must submit to the DEQ for approval final engineering 26 plans and specifications for necessary corrective actions and improvements. 27 Page 1 - MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND ORDER - AMENDMENT WQ/M-WR-07-082 NO. 213 1 d. Within 45 days of receiving DEQ comments to the final engineering plans 2 and specifications, revised the plans and specifications consistent with DEQ comments and 3 resubmit to DEQ for approval. 4 e. By no later than 270 days after DEQ approval of the final engineering plans, 5 the Permittee must submit documentation to the DEQ that contracts for the construction of 6 necessary corrective actions and improvements have been awarded. 7 f. By no later than one (1) year after the contracts for construction have been 8 awarded, the Permittee must submit to the DEQ a progress report on the construction of all 9 necessary improvements. 10 g. By no later than two (2) years after the contracts for construction have been 11 awarded, the Permittee mustcomplete the necessary corrective actions and construction of all 12 necessary improvements and comply with the Excess Thermal Load limit based upon the Waste 13 Load Allocation contained in the TMDL. 14 h. This compliance schedule may be modified as mutually agreed upon by the 15 parties to this MAO if other outside agency permits are required to complete the upgrades which 16 may delay the schedule beyond the permittee’s control. 17 B. Requiring Permittee to meet the following interim pH effluent limitation: 18 Efflunt pH must be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 until the NPDES permit is renewed. 19 C. Requiring Permittee to meet the following interim Recycled Water limitations and 20 requirements until the NPDES permit is renewed: 21 a. Recycled Water Outfall 002 (Poplar Tree Reuse Site) 22 (1) No discharge to waters of the state is permitted.All recycled water 23 shall be distributed on land, for dissipation by evapotranspiration and controlled seepage by 24 following sound irrigation practices so as to prevent: 25 i. Prolonged ponding of treated recycled water on the ground 26 surface; 27 ii. Surface runoff or subsurface drainage through drainage tile; Page 2 - MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND ORDER - AMENDMENT WQ/M-WR-07-082 NO. 214 1 iii. The creation of odors, fly and mosquito breeding or other 2 nuisance conditions; 3 iv. The overloading of land with nutrients, organics, or other 4 pollutant parameters; and, 5 v. Impairment of existing or potential beneficial uses of 6 groundwater. 7 (2) Prior to land application of the recycled water through Outfall 002, it 8 must receive at least Class D treatment as defined in OAR 340-055 to: Reduce E. coli bacteria to a 9 30-day log mean of 126 organisms per 100 mL and 406 E. coli organisms per 100 mL in any single 10 sample. The Permittee may treat and meet the requirements of a higher Class of recycled water if 11 the Permittee elects to do so in accordance with OAR Chapter 340, Division 55. 12 (3) Where the recycled water is applied directly to the soil, there must be 13 a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the site used for irrigation and the site property line and 14 where sprinkler irrigation is used, there must be a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of the site 15 used for irrigation and site property line. Where micro-sprinkler irrigation is used, there must be a 16 minimum of 35 feet from the edge of the site used for irrigation and the site property line. 17 18 19 PERMITTEE 20 21 Date Signature 22 Name (print) 23 Title (print) 24 25 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and 26 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION 27 Page 3 - MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND ORDER - AMENDMENT WQ/M-WR-07-082 NO. 215 1 2 Date Leah E. Koss, Manager Office of Compliance and Enforcement 3 on behalf of DEQ pursuant to OAR 340-012-0170 on behalf of the EQC pursuant to OAR 340-011-0505 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Page 4 - MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND ORDER - AMENDMENT WQ/M-WR-07-082 NO. 216 Agenda Item December 14, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Hendryx, Economic and Development Services Director; Kate Foster, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Commission Approval of a Design Review and Property Line Adjustment,DR 2015-03 and PLA 2015-02, Located at 2100 Progress Way and 1395 Mt. Hood Avenue RECOMMENDATION: No action is recommended. This item is placed before the Council for informational purposes, in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 4.02.02. The Council may call up this item for review if desired. BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a design review for a new 8,328 square foot office building for Northwest Senior and Disability Services and a property line adjustment between two properties (2100 Progress Way and 1395 Mt. Hood Ave) to enlarge the property at 2100 Progress Way to accommodate the proposed use. The properties are zoned Commercial General (CG). Abutting properties are zoned CG and Industrial Park (IP). The Planning Commission approved the decision on November 12, 2015, subject to conditions of approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This decision is anticipated to have no direct public sector financial impact. Increased development may slightly increase City revenues. Agenda Item Review:City Administrator ___x___City Attorney ___x___Finance ___x__ 217 Honorable Mayor and City Council December 14, 2015 Page 2 (2100 PROGRESS WAY PROPERTY AT NORTHWEST AND 1395 MT HOOD AVENUE PROPERTY TO THE EAST). 218 Honorable Mayor and City Council December 14, 2015 Page 3 DESIGN REVIEW SITE PLAN (REDUCED SIZE) 219 Honorable Mayor and City Council December 14, 2015 Page 4 PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT SITE PLAN (REDUCED SIZE) 220